Ἡ 
¢ 
a | 


A SHORT EXPOSITION 
OF THE EPISTLE 
TO THE GALATIANS 


STEVENS 


( veh eee 
NG 

ra Ee, Sion 
λ = ΞΙ; 


ΓᾺ yes 
RX ; 


: 
yes 


Nah 


PAS 


eT 
᾽ 8 
ae ὄντι 


ἯΙ ah ΜΉ ἈΝ ΩΡ : 


Library of The Theological Seminary : 


PRINCETON : NEW JERSEY 


we 
ec! ie rt be τ nA See i 
KALE Ne aS ἢ Me Ἂν Bs 
ναί ΚΝ AN oe | 
Ἂν Shh ἢ ἐστί Ξ 
τὰ ΝΣ ᾿ a 
ἮΝ AX ante [As ; 
ΙΖ ᾿ ΟΥ̓ Fisk a Ni Wes le 
ahs ah Ι 
iy 


" ical a 
ie 7 


pass ay 
veal ets 


BN gzat 


oe, ἡ 
ΠΗ] 


<i 


δι 
sk aes 
y ‘1 oy = 
A ας απ Κ 
He 


i 


aad 


τ hy 


A SHORT EXPOSITION 


OF THE 


EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS 


DESIGNED AS A TEXT-BOOK FOR CLASS-ROOM USE 
AND FOR PRIVATE STUDY 


/ 
BY 
᾿ 


- GEORGE B. STEVENS, Pu.D., D. Ὁ. 


PROFESSOR OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM AND INTERPRE- 
TATION IN YALE UNIVERSITY 


LIBRARY Gr 


THE STUDENT PUBLISHING CO. 
HARTFORD, CONN. 


a χΣΣ 
ho ὦ ὃ. μ 
et 4 ΄ 


{ bape snr 


x/ a" 


J ee ee . CopyricHt, 1890  —~— 2 
HD Na "ἢ By GEORGE B. STEVENS. 
SF ek rea «| ΜΠ 1: 


A 
i 


LIBRARY oF = 
HARAY ἢ, ΠΕ γι / 


Hn RON AMEN YN 6 
PREFACE. 


THE author has aimed, in the preparation of this 
handbook, to supply to the student the means of 
clearly tracing Paul’s course of thought in the 
Epistle to the Galatians. He has sought to present 
the essential results of critical study, without intro- 
ducing into the exposition so many of the details of 
the critical process as to embarrass the mind and 
withdraw attention from the ideas themselves. 
The explanations were written with constant refer- 
ence to the original text, but it accorded with the 
purpose which the book was designed to serve to 
place in connection with the exposition of each 
*verse the translation of the Revised Version. In 
cases where anything could be gained for the criti- 
cal student by so doing, I have placed the Greek 
text of the words and phrases commented upon in > 
parenthesis. By this method I have sought to 
adapt the exposition alike to students of the orig- 
inal and of the English Version. 

In a few instances it seemed necessary to com- 
ment on points connected with the original lan- 
guage which it was not easy to make plain to one 


iv Preface. 


who should read the translation only. In such 
cases, I have inserted in parenthesis the English of 
the words in question, or, if that plan seemed 
unlikely to make the matter intelligible to the 
English reader, I have remanded the explanation to 
the margin. It is believed that the entire exposi- 
tion, with these few exceptions, will be readily 
understood by the intelligent and diligent student 
of the English text. 

Where the meaning of passages is doubtful or 
much disputed, I have generally mentioned in 
parenthesis a few prominent representatives, among 
well known interpreters, of the different views. It 
has been, however, no part of my plan to give a full 
account of varying interpretations; yet the brief 
exposition of opposing opinions in the case of ob- 
scure and difficult passages has often seemed advisa- 
ble in order that the student might consider and 
compare the more plausible explanations. 

To each chapter has been prefixed an analysis 
and a paraphrase. The divisions of the chapters 
correspond to the paragraphs in the Revised Ver- 
sion. To each of these I have prefixed a title 
which gives the leading thought of the section. 
These titles, taken together, constitute the analysis 
of the Epistle. I commend to the student the 
constant use of the paraphrase in connection with | 
his effort to trace the Apostle’s argument. It is 
often possible to bring out the essential idea of an 


Preface. Υ͂ 


obscure passage by such a free rendering more 
clearly than can be done by explanations in detail 
of the writer’s own words. I have not attempted in 
the paraphrase to represent the minor turns and 
shades of thought, but rather to place in sharp 
relief those great central ideas, whose clear appre- 
hension will render comparatively easy the appreci- 
ation of the more detailed explanations which are 
presented in the notes. It would bea great advan- 
tage for the student to read through the entire 
Epistle,—and more than once,—consulting the par- 
aphrase in cases where the thought is not under- 
stood, before the study in detail is begun. By 
doing this, in connection with the mastery of the 
main points presented in the Introduction, the 
great advantage arising from a clear idea of the 
purpose and scope of the letter as a whole is gained, 
and the task of threading one’s way through all the 
turnings and digressions of the thought rendered a 
far easier one. 

The object which I have kept steadily in mind in 
the preparation of this manual, has been to furnish, 
the student of the Bible,—whether a professional 
student of theology or not,—with an introduction | 
to the religious and theological teaching of the 
Apostle Paul. The method of Biblical study, com- 
paratively new among us, which investigates each 
book of the Bible, or each group of books which 
belong together by reason of common authorship or 


vi Preface. 


similarity of character, as a whole, and explains all 
its parts in the light of their historic occasion, pur- 
pose and peculiarities, is one of so great value and 
importance that it is certain to be more and more 
widely employed and to be adapted, in all practi- | 
cable ways, to the popular study of the Bible. A 
wholly new light is shed upon the meaning of the 
Biblical books when the historic situation in which 
they arose is understood and their occasion and 
immediate purpose and use made clear. 
_ The author’s effort has been to trace the movye- 
ment of the argument in this Epistle throughout in 
the light of those conditions which furnished the 
immediate occasion of its composition and did so 
much to determine its peculiarities. Fortunately 
the numerous local and personal allusions in the 
letter, together with kindred courses of thought in 
the Epistle to the Romans and historic notices in 
the Book of Acts, enable us to form a clear and 
well-defined picture alike of the condition of the 
Galatian churches and of the grounds of the Apos- 
tle’s convictions and fears which find expression in 
the Epistle. 
In an appendix I have presented an outline plan 
for the study of the Epistle which I think may be - 
of service, especially to those who study it without 
the aid of an instructor. Some teachers may prefer | 
to follow the method which is here outlined,—sup- 
plementing it perhaps, with additional material,— 


Preface. vil 


rather than to proceed upon the ordinary plan of 
studying the Epistle section by section and verse 
by verse. Such a course would have important 
advantages and could, I think, be planned with 
little difficulty and pursued with great profit. But 
whether this outline is employed in the study or 
not, the questions and topics which it supplies 
should be used in review. From them also may be 
derived abundant material for an examination upon 
the Epistle. | 

With these explanations of its method and pur- ᾿ 
pose, the author dedicates this manual to that large 
and increasing company of Bible students who are 
eager to gain a clearer undérstanding and a more 
intelligent appreciation of the Sacred Scriptures. 


YALE UNIVERSITY, October, 1890. 


INTRODUCTION. 


I THe Puace oF GALATIANS AMONG THE 
PAULINE EPISTLES. 


GALATIANS is the earliest of the four great doc- 
trinal Epistles of Paul (Gal., I and II Cor., Rom.), 
Next to Romans it is the most important for the 
study of the Apostle’s teaching, and in the exposi- 
tion of the doctrines of faith, justification and 
Christian freedom, is scarcely second to the longer 
and more comprehensive letter. It is a peculiarly 
desirable Epistle with which to begin the critical 
study of the Pauline writings, both because of its 
vigor, intensity and comparative brevity, and be- 
cause the circumstances which called it forth were 
such as to lead the Apostle to concentrate his atten- 
tion throughout upon the central principles of his 
theology and to set them in sharpest contrast with 
opposing principles. One who masters Galatians 
will the more easily master Romans; he will also 
find that the thoughts which are developed in this 
Epistle furnish, to a great extent, the key to the 
understanding of Paul’s whole theological system. 

1 


2 Introduction. 


Il. GENERAL CHARACTER OF THE HPISTLE. 


It is pre-eminently doctrinal and controversial. 
It most closely resembles Romans in contents ; I and 
II Corinthians in its mingling of doctrine and 
exhortation. Like Romans, it has for its central 
thought justification by faith. Being less syste- 
matic, however, it does not so readily admit of 
analysis. Romans is general, having more of the 
character of a treatise; Galatians is specific and is 
written with direct reference to local conditions. 
In this respect it resembles I and II Corinthians. 

Our Epistle seems to have been written with the 
apostle’s own hand (τῇ ἐμῇ χειρί, vi. 11); if so, it is 
the only instance (with the possible exception of 
the short personal letter to Philemon, see ver. 19). 
Paul usually dictated his letters to an amanuensis, 
adding with his own hand only the closing words of 
salutation (see notes on vi. 11). 

Galatians is a peculiarly spirited, and indeed, 
vehement letter. It bears the clearest marks of 
Paul’s mind and genius. Criticism has universally 
ascribed it to him.* Though apparently written 
without conscious plan, it has a striking compact- 
ness and unity. Its emphasis of faith and its bold 
assertions of the freedom of the Christian from the 
law, made it the favorite Epistle of the Reformers. 


* The denial of its genuineness by Bruno Bauer and one 
or two followers, deserves mention merely as a vagary of 
a reckless, iconoclastic skepticism. 


Introduction. 8 


Luther declared: ‘‘It is my Epistle; I have be- 
trothed myself to it.” 


III. ANALYSIS OF THE EPISTLE. 

1. Apologetic Section: Chs. i. and ii. 

Paul vindicates his apostolic commission and 
authority. His gospel was not received from men, 
nor from the primitive apostles even, but from 
heaven by direct revelation. He shows with what 
authority and effect he had rebuked even Peter, 
when, on one occasion, he had yielded too much to 
the extreme Pharisaic party who maintained that 
the Gentile converts must be circumcised and keep 
the law. 


2. Dogmatic Section: Ch. 111. 1—Ch. v. 12. 


In this division Paul develops the doctrine of 
salvation by faith alone, apart from deeds of the 
law. He exhibits the difference between the faith- 
principle and the works-principle, shows that both 
cannot be essential conditions of salvation and 
proves (chiefly from the Old Testament itself) both 
that faith is the only necessary condition, and that 
the effort to be saved by works, always has been, 
and always must be, futile. 


3. Hortatory or Practical Section: Ch. v. 18--- 
. Ch. vi. 18. 


This portion is occupied with warnings against 
the abuse of Christian freedom and the misapplica- 


4 Introduction. 


tion of his teaching. He exhorts the Galatians to 
humility and helpfulness toward the erring and 
reminds them of the essential Christian virtues. 
He closes with the assertion that the question of 
circumcision (on which his opponents so much 
insisted) is, in itself, of no importance, but that it 
is all-important that men should be renewed in life 
through Christ. 


IV. THE OcCASION OF THE EPISTLE. 


This occasion is found in the presence in the 
Galatian community of Jewish-Christian teachers 
who insisted that Gentiles who became Christians 
must also become Jews, that is, be circumcised and 
keep the Old Testament law assuch. It is gener- 
ally thought that these Judaizers had come from 
Palestine (so Meyer); others (as Neander) suppose 
that they were partly from Judea and partly native 
to Galatia, and still others (as Weiss) maintain that 
they were connected with Jewish-Christian congre- 
gations which had been gathered in Galatia previous 
to Paul’s founding the Gentile-Christian churches 
in the province. No data exist for confidently set- 
tling this question. Whoever these persons were, 
it is certain that they did not comprehend the new- 
ness and completeness of Christianity; it was to them 
but an appendix or supplement to the Old Testa- 
ment system. Paul was the champion of the oppo- 
site view. For him Christianity was complete in 


Introduction. 5 


itself and those who accepted it were not under the 
law. His opponents’ position was contrary to the 
decision of the Apostolic conference held at Jerusa- 
lem (Acts xv., Gal. ii.) at which the most conserva- 
tive primitive apostles, Peter, James and John, had 
approved his teaching and disclaimed any desire to 
supplement or change it. (Cf. analysis of Ch. ii. 
and notes). 

The Tubingen critics (Baur, Schwegler, Zeller, 
et al.) have maintained that Paul’s difference was 
not merely with an extreme Jewish party in the 
ehurch (cf. Acts xv. 1; Gal. 11: 12;. 11 Cor. x1., 5, 
13), but with the primitive apostles as well, and 
that the differences between himself and the “ pil- 
lars” (Gal. 11. 9) were irreconcilable. The usual 
view is that there were indeed difficulties between 
him and them, arising out of their different circum- 
stances and points of view, but that on full consid- 
eration, they were readily adjusted and never 
amounted to a fundamental opposition of opinion. 
The study of Ch. ii. (in connection with Acts xv.) 
must determine the answer to this question. 


V. GALATIA AND THE GALATIAN CHURCHES. 


Galatia was a province in Central Asia Minor so 
called from the Galli or Galatae who invaded and 
settled this region 280 B.c. The Roman province 
of Galatia, strictly speaking, included Pisidia and 
Lycaonia, but in the New Testament the name 


6 Introduction. 


Galatia is used geographically to denote the region 
actually occupied by the Galatian people. Ancyra 
was the principal city. It is a disputed point 
whether the Galatians were Teutons (and accord- 
ingly allied to the German peoples) or Celts (and so 
connected with the ancient Britons). As a repre- 
sentative of the former view Meyer says, ‘‘ The con- 
version of the Galatians is the beginning of German 
church history.”* As a defender of the latter 
opinion, Lightfoot declares, ‘‘ They were genuine 
Celts belonging to the Cymric subdivision of which 
the Welsh are the modern representatives.” + Upon 
the basis of this conviction Bishop Lightfoot in- 
dulges the fancy that one of these people on 
coming to South Britain for purposes of trade, 
may have planted Christianity in the _ Brit- 
ish Isles. On this supposition their conver- 
sion would be the beginning of British church 
history. 

The Galatians had become a Greek-speaking peo- 
ple at the time of their conversion. They were 
genuine Gentile-Christians and had received from 
the Apostle Paul himself instruction in his own 
type of doctrine. He twice visited them, (1) on his 
second missionary journey,—a fact which the Acts 


* Introduction to Commentary on Galatians. 
+t Essay: ‘‘ Were the Galatians Celts or Teutons?” in 
his Commentary on Galatians. 


Introduction. 7 


(xvi. 6) mentions quite incidentally. The Epistle 
(iv. 18, 14) supplies the additional information that 
he was detained among them on this visit by an 
infirmity which would have made him burdensome 
to them had they been less kind and forbearing. 
During this visit the churches were established 
(cf. iv.19). (2) In the course of his third missionary 
journey he again visited them (two or three years 
after the first visit) for the purpose of strengthening 
and encouraging them in the Christian life (Acts 
XViii. 23). 

Though predominantly Gentile, these churches 
must have had in their membership native Jews and 
proselytes. The Apostle presupposes their acquaint- 
ance with the Old Testament. They were affected 
with Jewish prejudices and were the more easily 
seduced into a Pharisaic interpretation of Chris- 
tianity and a spirit of opposition to Paul. More- 
over, they appear to have been naturally a fickle 
people (i. 6.; iv. 14, 15). 


V. DATE AND PLACE OF WRITING. 


A majority of scholars (chiefly on the ground of 
Gal. i. 6), suppose that the Epistle was written 
shortly after Paul’s second visit during his three 
years’ stay at Ephesus, therefore within the pe- 
riod A. D. 54-56. Others place it a little later 
during the winter which the Apostle spent at 


8 Introduction. 


Corinth (Acts xx.3) and hence fix the date 
at A. D. 57.* 


* It may be useful to add a grouping of, the Pauline 
Epistles which is not only chronological but according 
to their subject-matter, together with their probable dates, 
as follows: 


1. THE MISSIONARY EPISTLES (52-53). 
I and II Thessalonians. 


2. THE GREAT DOCTRINAL EPISTLES (55-58). 
Galatians, / 
I and II Corinthians, 
Romans. 


8, Toe EPISTLES OF THE IMPRISONMENT (62-63). 
Colossians, 
Philemon, 
Ephesians, 
Philippians. 


4, THE PASTORAL EPISTLES (67-68). 
I Timothy, 
Titus, 
II Timothy. 


ANALYSIS AND PARAPHRASE OF 
CHAPTER I. 


1. Salutation, 1-5. I affirm the genuineness of 
my apostleship (which my opponents in Galatia 
have called in question) (1), and declare that I did 
not receive my commission from any human source, 
but from God, through a revelation of the risen and 
glorified Christ, who is the world’s Saviour from sin 
and to whom belongs eternal glory (8-5). 

2. The truthfulness of his teaching, 6-10. I am 
surprised that so soon after your conversion (or after 
my visit,—see notes on verse 6) you should have de- 
serted the doctrine of grace, which I taught you, 
for that of works, which may be called a ““ different 
gospel,” but would better (since there is but one 
true gospel) be called no gospel at all (6, 7). This 
counter-teaching only aims to mislead you and to 
overthrow the true Christian doctrine (7). My 
teaching is true and I should denounce any pre- 
tended ‘‘ gospel” which was subversive of it, even 
though it were delivered by an angel from heaven ; 
should any man teach contrary to my gospel of 
grace and faith, I pronounce a curse upon him 

9 


10 Analysis and Paraphrase of Chapter 1. 


(8, 9). I justify this boldness and vehemence by 
the confident assurance that in my preaching I am 
not seeking human favor, but obeying God’s will 
(10). 

3. The divine origin of his gospel, (11-17). Asa 
ground for my strong assertions, I allege the cer- 
tainty that my teaching is not shaped by a human 
standard or derived from a human source, but that 
it came to me by a revelation of Jesus Christ 
(11, 12). My zealous adherence to the Jewish relig- 
ion which led me to become the persecutor of the 
church, is proof that I could not have been trans- 
formed into a Christian Apostle by mere human 
means (13, 14). It was only when God, who had a 
great purpose to serve in my life, was pleased to re- 
veal Christ as the truly risen and glorified Messiah 
to my spirit, that I became a Christian and a mis- 
sionary (15, 16); after this event no more than 
before can my course be explained as a result of 
human influence or instruction (16); I did not 
resort (as may be supposed) to the primitive Apostles 
at Jerusalem, there to be taught the truths which I 
proclaim ; on the contrary, I went away into the re- 
mote regions of Arabia whence I returned to Da- 
mascus [rather than to Jerusalem] (17). 

4, Paul’s movements after his conversion (18-24). 
After my conversion my course was such as to prove 
my independence of human teachers. For three 
years I did not see Jerusalem and the authorities of 


Analysis and Paraphrase of Chapter 1. 11 


the church there. At the expiration of that 
period, however, I went thither to interview Peter 
but my visit was a brief one. I only saw one other 
apostle (18, 19). Ithen returned through Syria to 
my native province. My brief stay in Jerusalem 
and Judea occasioned, indeed, a new interest and 
rejoicing at my conversion, but I was not there long 
enough so that the churches at large even knew me 
by sight (21-24). 


THE SALUTATION : i. 1-5. 


TuIs is one of the briefest of the salutations to be 
found in the letters of Paul to the churches. The 
abruptness with which he plunges into the midst of 
his theme, and the absence of all commendation of 
the Galatian Christians, are noticeable features, 
and are doubtless explained by the Apostle’s intense 
feeling of displeasure and grief at the readiness of 
the Galatians to desert the principles which he had 
taught them. 

The passage consists of a greeting (vv. 1, 2) and, 
in connection with the benediction, a statement 
concerning Christ’s saving and redeeming work. It 
is clear, from the parenthesis of verse 1, that Paul 
has the opposition to himself in the Galatian 
churches clearly in mind from the beginning of the 
letter. 

1. Paul, an Apostle (not from men, 
neither through man, but through Jesus 
Christ, and God the Father, who raised © 
him from the dead). The Apostle calls him- 
self, as always, Paul. Why never Saul, which ap- 
pears to have been his proper name? ‘The first 

12 


The Salutation: i. 1. 13 


trace of the change of name isfound in Acts xiii. 9. 
It is not in connection with his conversion, but 
directly after his separation to missionary service, 
that the change is found. In explanation of it va- 
rious reasons are assigned:—(1) He received this 
new name from the converted Roman deputy, Ser- 
gius Paulus; or if he had previously received this 
Roman name, he began to use it in commemoration 
of that event (Acts xill. 7 seg.); (so Meyer, Bengel 
and Olshausen). But there is no ground for this in 
the text, and it is altogether improbable that he 
would be named for one of his converts. (2) The 
Lexical meaning of ‘‘ Paulus ” is “‘small,” and he 
so designated himself from humility (see I Cor. xv. 
9); (so Augustine, Witsius). But the term “the 
least ” (ὁ ἐλάχιστος) in that passage Paul applies 
to himself in view of his career as a persecutor; in 
other respects he maintains his full equality with 
the primitive Apostles, (Gal. i. 11., passim). (8) 
He had both a Jewish and a Roman name. The 
latter was brought into exclusive use in connection 
with his work as the Apostle to the Gentiles. It 
was either preferred by himself from a sense of fit- 
ness, or applied to him by others in recognition of 
the sphere of his ministry; (so, substantially, 
Lightfoot, Wieseler, Neander, Gloag, e¢ al.). This 
is probably the correct view. Cf. John Mark, at 
first called simply John, (Acts xiii. 5), but later, as 
a missionary, Mark, (Acts xv. 37-39). Paul was 


14 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


a very common Roman name. An apostle 
(ἀπόστολος): Paul claims the same title as belonged 
to the twelve. Elsewhere James seems to be so en- 
titled (i. 19). 

In the connection of this very word with his 
name, we have the key-note of the first part of the 
Epistle, in which he claims the rank of an Apostle, 
as being equal with the twelve, and as having a 
direct divine commission. It is noticeable how 
Paul ranks himself as inferior when the faults of 
his life come into view (I Cor. xv. 9), but asserts 
his equal rank when the validity of his office is as- 
sailed. 

Not from men (οὐκ ἀπ’ ἀνθ.), not from men as 
source; neither through mani (οὐδὲ ov ἀνθ.), nor 
through the intervention of man as the medium. 
His apostolate is not from men, but from God 
as its source and authority; nor yet (οὐδέ) is it 
mediated through (any) man (but through Christ). 
God appointed him to his work; he is not a false 
Apostle, as the Judaizers say. Such is the force of 
from (ἀπό. He further asserts that he too (as 
well as the twelve) received his commission direct 
from Christ, and does not stand merely in the rank 
of such men as Timothy who were sent out by the 
Apostles. The suggestion of Luther and others is 
correct: from implies a contrast to ““ false apos- 
{165; and through implies a contrast to “ Chris- 
tian workers who were not apostles.” The change 


The Salutation: i. 1. 15 


from the plural (from men) to the singular 
(through man) is probably made in order to adapt 
the expression to the coming correlative phrase, 
through Jesus Christ (διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ). 

The exact development of the parallelism would 
have yielded: Not from (από) men, neither 
through .(s¢) man, but through Jesus 
Christ and from (ἀπό) God, where from God 
would have been correlative to from men, as 
stating the ultimate source whence his office 
had come. But Paul rarely carries out his par- 
allels in so precise a manner. The mediation is 
here carried back and ascribed to God himself, 
(cf. Rom. xi. 36). Paul is probably thinking of the 
revelation made to him in the experience of his con- 
version as constituting his direct commission from 
Christ, and this, as being providential, may be said 
to have been given through the agency or operation 
of God. 

God the Father (θεοῦ πατρός): the expression is 
closely like a proper name. God is here called 
Father in relation to Christ (so Meyer and Ellicott). 
DeWette interprets the expression as referring to 
God’s fatherhood to all men. Usteri and Wieseler 
refer it to his paternal relation to Christians. Christ 
is named first because the statement is a climax; 
as if he said: ‘‘ My mission is mediated through the 
direct call of Christ, but this call has its basis in 

the counsels of God himself, who was Christ’s 


10 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


Father, and who was the power that wrought in and 
through him.” 

The contrast of through man, through 
Christ, would clearly indicate that Paul thought 
of Christ as superhuman. He was indeed a man in 
his manifested human life; but as the exalted par- 
taker of the divine majesty, he was more. 

Why should Paul add: Who raised him from 
the dead? How does this bear upon the assertion 
of his apostolic authority? He wishes to emphasize 
the exalted and glorious source of his calling. He 
is the chosen instrument of the risen Christ; his 
commission is from the God who lived behind and 
wrought through this earthly life of Christ; who 
wrought miracles through him, even the crowning 
miracle of raising him from the dead. It is from 
no less a source than this that he has derived his 
apostolate (so Meyer, Ellicott). The phrase ἐκ νεκ- 
ρῶν (from [the] dead) is regularly without the 
article in the New Testament. 

2. And all the brethren which are with 
me, unto the churches of Galatia:—All 
the brethren which are with me (οἱ σὺν ἐμοὶ 
πάντες ἀδελφοί), 1. € his traveling companions, and 
official assistants, such as Timothy and Titus were; 
cf. Phil. iv. 21, where from the ‘‘saints” in gen- 
eral, ‘‘those with him” are distinguished. It is 
against the Pauline usage to suppose that he means 
“9811 the Christians in the place where he wrote,” 


~The Salutation: 1. 8. 1” 


since Paul never writes in the name of any church, 
Unto the churches (ταὶς ἐκκλησίαις): language 
more abrupt than is elsewhere found in the 
introductions to Paul’s Epistles. There is no com- 
mendation of the Galatians; not even so much as 
would be implied in the expression ‘‘ called saints,” 
or ‘‘ who are in God the Father.” Clearly the Apos- 
tle has vividly and painfully in mind the extent of 
their apostasy, and their sad lapse from his teaching. 

3. Grace to you and peace from God the 
Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ:—The 
benediction, substantially in the same form as here, 
is a mark of every Epistle of Paul. It is an ampli- 
fication of the Jewish greeting, ‘‘ Peace to thee” 
ΩΡ OVP). Grace and peace (χάρις καὶ εἰρήνη) 
are related as ground and consequence. ‘‘ Grace” 
denotes the loving favor of God. <‘‘ Peace” is the 
inner joy and repose of soul which follow upon it. 
For the Hebrew greeting of peace, see Luke x. 5, 6. 
The Father (τοῦ πατρός) here designates God as 
father in relation to those who send the greeting 
and also to the Christians addressed. Our Lord 
(κυρίου ἡμῶν): the word κύριος (Lord) came into use, 
perhaps, as the Greek equivalent of Rabbi (so 
Wieseler). It designates Christ as Master in rela- 
tion to his disciples and followers; but it also goes 
beyond this, and designates him as the exalted One 
who commands his servants (δοῦλοι) and administers 
his kingdom on earth. Observe the conjoining of 

2 


18 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


the names God and Christ by prepositions covering 
both names, as by through (διά) in the first 
verse, and here by from (ἀπό). 

4. Who gave himself for our sins, that 
he might deliver us out of this present 
evil world, according to the will of our 
God and Father :—Who gave himself for 
our sins (τοῦ δόντος ἑαυτὸν περὶ τῶν duap.): the vica- 
rious death of Christ is here so early alluded to be- 
cause the Apostle has in mind their neglect of that 
doctrine, (cf. ii. 21). Their Judaistic errors in- 
volved an abandonment of the sole saving signifi- 
cance of Christ’s sufferings and death.* 

This present evil world (ἐκ τοῦ αἰῶνος τοῦ 


* The reading περί is best attested (vs. Tex. Rec. and B, 
ὑπέρ). The former is strictly more appropriate as applied 
to things; the latter as applied to persons (cf. I Pet. 
iii. 18); though Paul writes ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν in I Cor. 
xv. 8, and here only. With a personal noun or pronoun 
Paul always uses ὑπέρ in connection with the vicarious 
death of Christ, except in I Thess. v. 10 (and here some 
MSS. read ὑπέρ). The two prepositions are closely alike, 
περί meaning ‘‘on account of,” “‘for’’; ὑπέρ “on behalf 
οὗ. Neither directly expresses the strict idea of vicari- 
ousness in the sense of “‘instead of’ (ἀντί), but the context 
implies a vicarious self-giving. He gave himself on behalf 
of our sins; in order to atone for them, and to rescue us from 
their power. We find λύτρον ἀντὶ πολλῶν, Matt. 20. 28; also, 
ἀντίλυτρον ὑπὲρ πάντων, I Tim. ii. 6. We have in the New 
Testament no such expression as’ Χριστὸς ἀπέθανεν ἀντὶ ἡμῶν, 


The Salutation: 1. 4. 19 


ἐνεστῶτος πονηροῦ), is the age or world-period previous 
to the second advent or parousia, which is evil, and 
is to be marked by greater wickedness as the parou- 
sia draws nigh (II Thess. il. 3. seg.). The present 
age (ὁ νῦν αἰών, αἰὼν οὗτος) 15 opposed to the coming age 
(αἰὼν μέλλων) Which ensues upon the parousia. Both 
are Hebraistic expressions ((}i7 oA and ay) vi 
N37). 

“Present (ἐνεστώς) World’? (or age): Meyer ren- 
ders “impending,” ‘‘ beginning,” and understands 
by αἰών here, the evil period which is to immediately 
precede Messiah’s advent. This the phrase can 
well mean; but the Pauline usage favors the com- 
mon view, and there is no hint that the Apostle is 
here thinking of the ‘‘ last times.” * 

The redemptive work of Christ is to deliver us 
out of the present world-age, which is evil; to take 
us out of relation to this evil stage of historical de- 
velopment, and to bring us into harmony with the 
principles and motives of a higher order. Evil 
(πονηροῦ) is emphatic: ‘‘ evil as it is.” 

According to the will of our God, 
etc. (κατὰ rd θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ) designates this self-giving 
and deliverance of Christ, as ordained of God. The 
work of Christ is an act of sovereign, divine mercy, 
far removed from human merit orattainment. The 
article of the original text which is joined to the 
word God (τοῦ θεοῦ) belongs, in my judgment, to 


τ ΜΡ iF Seem at OP ESV OO ey VLA al? SMe) so" S 
* On Paul’s use of ἑνεστώς cf. Rom. viii. 38; I Cor. iii. 22. 


20 The Epistle to the Galatians. Ν 


both the word God and the word Father. 
The article not being necessary to the former word 
would hardly have been used if this meaning had 
not been intended (Lightfoot). It binds the two 
terms together, and Our (ἡμῶν) is dependent 
upon both; the force of the phrase, then, is our 
God and Father; ο΄. II Cor. i. 3. Meyer and 
Wieseler construe our with Father only. These 
two constructions underlie the renderings in the 
Revised and the King J ames Versions respectively. 

Many similar passages occur and the point is a 
doubtful one. The Greek commentators them- 
selves differ. In saying our Paul is referring 
_ to the Christians. This is the prevailing New 
Testament usage. God is Father to his obedient 
sons (vii). An ethical relation and harmony, and 
not a mere natural relation, is involved in these 
words. Fatherhood means more than creatorship. 
God is designated as Father only in relation to per- 
sons, who alone are capable of being the objects of 
the divine love. 

5. To whom be the glory forever and 
ever. Amen.—The mention of God as “our 
Father” implies the motif of his will (θέλημα) in the 
work of Christ, viz., love, and it is this thought 
that calls out the ascription of praise: To whom 
be the glory, etc. 

The glory (ἡ δόξα, sc. εἴη), means the glory 
which is due him for his gracious action. It is the 


The Salutation: i. 5. 21 


ascription of thankfulness and praise; the recogni- 
tion of, and rejoicing in, the love and grace of God 
‘which are his peculiar glory. As opposed to this 
evil, passing age (aeon), Paul ascribes honor to God. 
for ‘‘the ages of the ages;” the unnumbered,? — 
countless ages of eternity. (cic τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν ἄϊόνων). 

Amen (ἀμήν), is the Hebrew [ON true, faithful; 
(Greek, (ἀληθινός). It is applied to God in the 
Old Testament. It is also used as an imprecation 
after prayers or oaths, Deut. xxvii. 15 seg., meaning, 
‘Surely let what has been said stand fast.” In the 
Septuagint it is either transliterated (ἀμήν), or trans- 
lated by some expression signifying ‘‘ truly” or 
‘let it be so,” (as ἀληθῶς or γένοιτο. Thus it passed 
into the New Testament, and has become a part 
of the devotional language of every Christian 
people. 


THE TRUTHFULNESS OF HIS TEACHING, 
vv. 6-10. 


InsTEAD of the usual thanksgiving which Paul 
early introduces into his letters (II Cor. is an 
exception), we find here an indignant rebuke for 
their speedy and deep fall away from the gospel 
which he had taught them, and their persuasion 
to the opinions and practices of errorists which 
were inconsistent with the true gospel. The Apos- 
tle adds his vehement protest against any person, 
be he man or angel, who may teach any other 
doctrine than that which he had taught them. He 
thus shows his profound conviction that he has 
taught them the truth, and that only. 

6, Imarvel that ye are so quickly 
removing from him that called you in the 
grace of Christ unto a different gospel :— 
E marvel (θαυμάζω): Almost always after the 
salutation Paul continues his Epistles with an 
expression of thankfulness (εὐχαριστῶ); of. Rom. i. 8; . 
I Cor. i. 4. The word recalls the wonder of Jesus 
at the people’s unbelief (Mark vi. 6, καὶ ἐθαύμασεν διὰ τὴν 
ἀπιστίαν αὐτῶν). So quickly (οὕτως ταχέως) 3 either 

22 


The Truthfulness of his Teaching: 1.6. 28 


(1), So rashly, suddenly, indicating the readiness with 
which they seized hold of the false doctrines (Chry- 
sostom, De Wette); or (2), So soon after my leaving 
you, referring to his labors among them (Calvin, 
Bengel and Wieseler), or (3), So soon after their con- 
version. The reference to God’s calling them favors 
this view (so Lightfoot, Meyer, Olshausen). Ye 
are so quickly removing (μετατίθεσθε), middle 
not passive (as Beza): to turn one’s self from, to 
fall away from; so used in the Septuagint of false- 
ness to one’s allegiance. The present indicates the 
process as going on (¢f. iv. 9-11). From him ~ 
that called you (ἀπὸ τοῦ καλέσαντος ὑμᾶς), that is, 
God. The call of God is his gracious invitation 
which comes to man through the gospel. The 
phrase cannot refer to Paul (so Paulus) nor to 
Christ (so Lachmann, Calvin, Bengel). In the 
grace of Christ: The grace of Christ denotes 
the means by which, or, perhaps, more strictly, the 
sphere within which, God’s call is made effectual. 
Unto a different gospel (Ec ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον) : 
Thus does Paul characterize the doctrine of the 
Judaizers. It is, in relation to the true teaching, 
different (τερον), so that the two are mutually 
exclusive. The Greek word here used implies 
ἃ comparison between only two, one of which 
must be chosen. Which is not another, 
(6 οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλο): The term rendered another (ἀλλο) 
implies the possession of something additional. 


24 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


Their gospel would be another, if it added to 
the true; but if it took the place of the true it 
would be different. They adhere to the Jewish 
law in such a way as to exclude the gospel. They 
give up the Christian principle of grace and faith; 
they nullify the distinctive doctrine of Christ’s 
redeeming death. 

7. Which is not another gospel: only 
there are some that trouble you, and 
would pervert the gospel of Christ.—It was 
a paradox to call their doctrine a gospel for 
there can be but one. The Apostle now corrects 
the expression by adding: ‘‘ This which I called a 
different gospel is no gospel at all. It is not 
another set along side of mine, as if there were 
several gospels. There can be no gospels in 
addition to the one.” In the first phrase, dif- 
ferent is the emphatic word; here it is not. 
Only (εἰ μή; lit. <‘except”). Their doctrine can be 
called another gospel only in the sense that 
it is a perversion of the true. This again is a modi- 
fication of the correction made in the expression: 
which is not another. The sense ἴδ: 
‘‘Theirs is a different gospel, that is, no true gos- 
pel at all, but only a perversion of the gospel.” 

There are some that trouble you 
(rapdcoovrec): This verb is often used of throw- 
ing into doctrinal unrest, by unsettling the mind 
(Acts xy. 24). The force of would pervert, 


The Truthfulness of his Teaching: 1. ἢ. 25 


(θέλοντες peraor, lit., ‘‘ wish to pervert ”) can hardly be, 
(as Bengel), ‘‘ wishing, but not able to pervert,” for 
they certainly accomplished their object; but rather, 
‘they are those who will to do it, who have this 
purpose.” Of. “If any man wills (θέλει) to do his 
will,” etc., John vii. 17, 

Pervert (μεταστρέψαι), means to distort a thing, 
so that it is no longer its true self. What Paul 
meant can be seen from iii. 3. From a doctrine in 
the sphere of the Spirit, they now departed to one 
in the sphere of the flesh, placing salvation in mer- 
itorious outward acts and observances, by adher- 
ence to Jewish law. Gospel of Christ: The 
phrase of Christ (Χριστοῦ) is probably objective gen- 
itive, designating Christ as the theme and content 
of the gospel, as commonly in the New Testament 
where this phrase is used, and this was the gospel 
which Paul had preached to them. Paul maintains 
the identity of “‘ his gospel ” with the gospel which 
was related to, and connected with Christ, as 
opposed to all doctrines of Jewish legalism and 
meritorious obedience. © 

8. But though we, or an angel from 
heaven, should preach unto you any 
gospel other than that which we preached 
unto you, let him be anathema:—But 
though We (ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐὰν jueic): The strict sense of 
this expression is ‘‘even if,” rather than ‘‘al- 
though” (ἐὰν kai), and indicates an extremely 


26 The δ) γμιδέο to the Galatians. 


improbable supposition. ‘‘Even if we” (the 
Apostle and his fellow laborers, i. 2) or, indeed, an ὁ 
angel from heaven, etc. It is doubtful if Paul ever 
uses We (ἡμεῖς) to denote merely himself as an 
individual. Other than that which (παρ᾽ δ): 
The relative pronoun (4) can refer to the word 
gospel (ciay.), ““ἴο that gospel which,” or be gen- 
eral, ‘‘to what” we have preached (Meyer). The 
preposition here used (παρά) implies a comparison of 
the two in which they exclude one another: If any 
one preaches a different gospel, one which is 
contrary to, or inconsistent with ours, ete. In 
former times there was a doctrinal controversy 
connected with this word between Lutherans and 
Roman Catholics regarding tradition. Was it said 
only that what is contrary to the gospel is accursed 
(the R. C. view); or that what is additional to, 
supplementary of it, is also condemned (Lutherans) ? 
ἢ. 6. Is supplementary tradition allowable or not? 
Let him be anathema (ἀνάθεμα ἔστω): The word 
anathema denotes a thing devoted to God; either 
in the sense of an offering, gift, etc. (Luke xxi. 5, so 
only here in the N. T.), or as consigned to divine 
punishment 7. ¢.; devoted to destruction, (so in 
six New Testament passages.)* Cf. our English 


* It is the Septuagint word for the Hebrew OMT which 
has the same twofold signification, in accordance with the 
use of the Hiphil of DN, ‘*to devote,” (cf. for example, 
Lev. xxvii. 28, with Deut. ii. 34). In the latter meaning it 
is something worthy or destined to be destroyed utterly. 


The Truthfulness of his Teaching: 1.9. 27 


“‘devote” and Latin sacrare. In later times this 
word, and the verb “‘to anathematize ” (ἀναθεματίζειν), 
were applied to Hcclesiastical censures and excom- 
munication. This force of the terms is not found 
in the New Testament. Anathema here means 
“‘an accursed thing.” Luther renders: der set 
verflucht. Cf. Gal. v. 10. sy 

9. As we have said before, so say I now 
again, If any man preacheth unto you 
any gospel other than that which ye 
received, let him be anathema.—This phrase 
As we have said before (ὡς προειρήκαμεν) may 
either refer to vy. 8 (so the older interpreters, Re- 
formers, and Neander), or to what he had said when 
he was among them, (probably on his second visit 
(Acts xviii. 23); (so Ellicott, Lightfoot, Meyer, 
_Wieseler). No grammatical reasons are decisive, 
but it is more natural to suppose that So say I 
NOW again (kai ἄρτι πάλιν λέγω) refers to something 
past, a previous occasion, rather than to what he 
has just written.* 

10. For am I now persuading men, or 
God? or am I seeking to please men? if I 
were still pleasing men, I should not 
be a servant of Christ:—For am I now 
persuading, etc. Explanation of his boldness 


* The student of the original text will note the unclassi- 
cal use of the accusative (ὑμᾶς) for the dative after 
εὐαγγελίζομαι. 


28 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


and vehemence. For (γάρ) gives the ground or 
reason for his daring assertion. ‘The truth of the 
second alternative implied in his question is the 
ground of his boldness. ‘‘Am I engaged in an 
effort to please men, or is this a case of fealty to 
God? It is the latter, hence I must proclaim and 
defend my doctrine which conserves the truth and 
the honor of Christ.” The word persuade (πείθω) 
is used here in a frequent classical sense, ‘‘ concili- 
ate,” “‘win favor with,” cf. Acts xii. 20 (πείσαντες 
Βλάστον). The now (apre) may imply a contradiction 
to the alleged occasions on which the Judaizers say 
he acted as a Jew (Lightfoot); or may refer to the 
time of his conversion (Wieseler); but probably 
rather serves to emphasize the present critical mo- 
ment (Meyer). ‘‘ Now of all other times am I seek- 
ing the favor of men?” οἷο. 

Or am I seeking (ἡ ζητῶ): The same thought is 
taken up ina more general form. It is a question 
as between pleasing men or God. Paul cannot 
yield here without ‘‘obeying men rather than 
God.” If I were still (ἐπ): If I yet, since my 
conversion (Wieseler), or, if I am still, as you say, a 
man-pleaser, preaching circumcision when occa-— 
sion demands (cf. vy. 11). A servant of Christ | 
(Χριστοῦ δοῦλος): The expression refers to his moral re- 
lation to Christ, Christ’s true and faithful bondman 
(Meyer, Wieseler), and not to a historical relation 
(Chrysostom, Schott, Riickert), as if he said: “ΤΙ 


The Truthfulness of his Teaching: 1.10. 29 


were now pleasing men I should have remained a 
Pharisee and a persecutor and never have become a 
Christian and an Apostle.” Meyer regards servant 
here as an unofficial, Wieseler as the official title of 
his apostleship. 


THE DIVINE ORIGIN OF HIS GOSPEL, 
vv. 11-17. 


VERSES 11, 12 bring forward the main theme of 
the Apologetic Section, the Independence and 
Divine Origin of his Gospel. After the impassioned 
outburst of feeling in verses 6-10, the Epistle con- 
tinues in a calmer strain, and with a certain 
solemnity. 

11. For I make known to you, breth- 
ren, as touching the gospel which was 
preached by me, that it is not after man. 
—For I make known, etc. (γνωρίζω γὰρ ὑμῖν); I 
make known (γνωρίζω) introduces a formal and 
solemn declaration. It was indeed known to them 
before, but not appreciated. ‘‘I make you aware; 
I would impress it upon you.” Soin I Cor. xv. 1; 
II Cor. viii. 1. “1 urge again upon your attention, 
and for your reception, the same doctrine which I 
formerly preached to you; and as connected with 
this doctrine, the specific thing which I urge is, 
that it is not a human work but a divine.” Breth- 
TeN (ἀδελφοί) indicates a changed phase of the Apos- 
tle’s temper. He had reproached them; he will 

30 


The Divine Origin of his Gospel: i. 12 91 


now reason with them, and win them. The Gos- 
pel (τὸ εὐαγγέλιον) is used by attraction or anticipa- 
tion, as the object of I make known, with 
which the sentence beginning with that (ὅτι) is in 
grammatical apposition. The other construction 
would have been: [make known to you that 
the gospel which was preached by me is 
not after man (y. ὅτι τὸ ebay. τὸ evay. ὑπ’ ἐμοῦ ἔστιν 
_«.7.2.)3 or: [make known to you concerning 
the gospel which was preached by me, 
that it is not after man (γν. ὑμῖν περὶ τοῦ ebay. τοῦ 
εὐαγγελίσθεντος ὑπ’ ἐμοῦ ὅτι κ, τ, 2.).—Not after man 
(οὐ κατὰ ἀνθ.--εκατὰ θεόν) designates not only its_origin 
as not human but its character as well. It was not 


a human work or product. 

12. For neither did I receive it from 
man, nor was I taught it, but it came to 
me through revelation of Jesus Christ. 
This verse contains the proof of the statement im- 
mediately preceding. For neither did I (οὐδὲ yap 
ἐγὼ παρὰ ἀνθρώπου παρέλαβον ἀυτό): The use of the pro- 
noun (ἐγώ), so commonly omitted, seems to show 
that the word neither (οὐδέ) has its proper adversa- 
tive force: neither did I any more than the original 
twelve, etc. Since Paul so frequently compares 
himself with the twelve in relation to his authority 
and the validity of his apostolic call, it is natural to 
think that this thought is here in mind. (So 
Meyer, Wieseler, Ellicott, Olshausen). Others (as 


32 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


Lightfoot) make the word neither simply continu- 
ative, and do not find the force of an implied com- 
parison in the I (ἐγώ). Neither did I receive 
it, states the general fact that his gospel was not 
communicated to him from a man, but from Christ. 
Nor was I taught it (οὔτε ἐδιδάχθην) denies more 
specifically that it is the result of his own study 
under any one’s instruction. ‘The contrast to this 
statement is found in through revelation 
(6? ἀποκαλύψεως). Of Jesus Christ (Ἰησοῦ Xp.) is the 
genitive of the subject, revelation from Jesus 
Christ. The context only decides the sense of 
this phrase since it occurs in both the subjective 
and the objective force. The point is, ‘‘My doc- 
trine is not a matter of instruction, but of revela- 
tion; not a human product, but a divine.” 

The passage suggests such inquiries as: What 
was this revelation and when did Paul receive it? 
Does he mean to say that every doctrine and opin- 
ion which he taught was a matter of supernatural 
revelation; or would the supposition that he re- 
ceived the central principles of his doctrine thus, 
and developed and applied them by reflection and 
reasoning, satisfy his language, and accord with the 
facts? How much does he mean to embrace in that 
gospel which he declares to have been a matter of 
revelation? Cf. on these points his other claims as 
a recipient of revelation. Eph. iii. 3; 11 Cor. xii, 
1; Acts xxii. 17, seq. 


The Divine Origin of his Gospel: 1. 12. 88 


As to the reference in the word revelation, the 
following opinions are current: (1) The reve- Ὁ 
lations mentioned in II Cor. xii. 1. (2) Revela- 
tions from Christ in general. (3) Α special ., 
revelation received not long after his conversion, on _ 
his way to Damascus (so Meyer and apparently 
Ellicott). (4) A revelation in connection with his. 
experience on the way to Damascus (so Wieseler, ὁ 
Usteri, Rickert, Olshausen). Hither (8) or (4) 
is to be preferred. It is not possible to decide 
confidently between them. The revelation (see ver. 
16) was such a manifestation of Christ to the 
Apostle’s soul that he saw him in his true char- 
acter as the Saviour,—a revelation which de- 
stroyed forever his Pharisaic theories and gave 
him a new principle of religion. The reference in 
vy. 13-16 to his conversion makes it necessary to 
assume that the revelation was closely connected with 
the experience of his conversion. The whole drift of 
the Hpistle shows that by his gospel he is thinking 
of those distinctive principles which he opposed to 
the Judaizing errors,—grace, faith, and Christ as 
sole Saviour. It is against the facts to suppose that 
Paul claimed a direct supernatural attestation of his 
every argument or opinion. See I Cor. vii. 12, 25, 
26. It was those central principles which made the 
gospel what it was, and which, if overthrown, nul- 
lified its character, that Paul had received as divine, 
and for which he claimed the direct authentication 
of Christ. 9 


34 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


We cannot suppose that Paul knew nothing of 
Christian doctrine before this revelation. The 
point is, that no such knowledge convinced him, or 
made the gospel his gospel. It was in the crisis 
when Christ stood revealed to him and in him 
(ἐν ἐμοί, ver. 16), that he received the divine authenti- 
cation; so that his certainty rests on no reasoning 
or argument, but on a divine revelation. The vision 
of Christ, the revelation of Christ to him, convinced 
him of what he had often heard, that Christ was 
the Son of God. This new conviction carried 
everything with it. If he was the Messiah, then he 
did not die for his own sins, but for others’. His 
death must therefore be the means of salvation. 
He is the suffering Messiah of Old Testament 
prophecy (I Cor. xv. 3, 4). He is the bringer of 
God’s grace to men, and the way to God is through 
faith in him. Thus Paul’s gospel springs directly 
from the certainty given in the revelation that 
Christ is the true Messiah, the Son of God. Ac- 
cordingly, the first assertion that he made as a 
Christian was that ‘‘Jesus is the Son of God.” 
(Acts ix. 20.) 

Having asserted (vv. 11, 12) his apostolic author- 
ity, and the independence of his doctrine, the 
Apostle now enters upon a detailed proof of his 
statement (vv. 13-24). In addition to the general 
analysis already given the points of this proof may 
be stated more in detail, thus:— 


The Divine Origin of his Gospel: 35 


(1). My career (ἀναστροφή) as a strict Jew and mah 
cutor of Christianity proves that no mere human 
persuasion could have transformed me into an 
Apostle, v. 13. 

(2). My intense prejudice and attachment to 
Jewish traditions, rendered me impervious to mere 
human influences, v. 14. 

(8). I did not communicate or consult with men 
about the change, vv. 15, 16. 

(4). I did not confer with the prior Apostles. I 
kept aloof from Jerusalem, the seat of apostolic 
authority. I withdrew into retirement, v. 17. 

(5). When later I visited Peter, I saw but one 
other Apostle, v. 19. . 

(6). The people of Judea did not even know me 
by sight; they had merely heard of my conversion 
and rejoiced in it, but that was all. I could not, 
therefore, have been under instruction at the cen- 
ter of apostolic teaching and influence. My relations 
and history do not permit the supposition that I 
received my gospel from any human source, 22-24. 

13. For ye have heard of my manner of 
life in time past in the Jews’ religion, how 
that beyond measure I persecuted the 

church of God, and made havoc of it :— 
For ye have heard (ἠκούσατε): emphatically pre- 
fixed. My course of life was something notorious 
and requiring no proof. My manner of life, 
way of acting, uniformly rendered ‘‘ conversation ” 


36 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


in A. V. (so in 13 passages). This translation was 
not incorrect when made, but owing to the change of 
meaning which ‘‘ conversation” has undergone, 
does not convey the true idea. We have here a 
later usage of the Greek word (ἀναστροφή), which in 
the classical language means a ‘‘ turning about” 
(as in battle) or a “‘dwelling.” In time past 
etc., a designation of the time when he was living 
in the condition and under the prejudices of a 
Jew. Beyond measure (καθ᾽ ὑπερβολήν), literally, 
‘‘in accordance with excess.” JI persecuted 
and made havoe (ἐδίωκον, ἐπόρθουν): The imperfect 
tenses denote the course of conduct in which he 
was continuously engaged. The verb uniformly 
translated made havoc in the R. V., is used in 
application either to the organization, the church, 
or to the people composing it. It means more than 
to disturb and break up the organization. Saul 
killed as well as disturbed. Cf. Acts xxii. 4. 

14, And I advanced in the Jews’ relig- 
ion beyond many of mine own age among 
my countrymen, being more exceedingly 
zealous for the traditions of my fathers:— 
I advanced, etc., (xpoéxorrov): The word literally 
means ‘‘to strike forward,” and so to advance, and 
is applied to time or to growth in character, in the 
New Testament. The meaning is:—‘‘I advanced 
in that mode and sphere of life in which I formerly 
acted.” Cf. Acts xxii. 3. Many of mine own 


The Divine Origin of his Gospel: 1.14. 37 


age, compeers, companions. Among my coun- 
trymen, (é 76 yéve pov), literally, ‘‘in my race.” 
The term for ‘‘ race” (γένος) may be used of com- 
munities larger or smaller, ranging from the family 
to the nation; here, probably, it denotes the Jewish 
people. 

Being more exceedingly zealous, etc., 
(περισσοτέρως ζηλωτὴς ὑπάρχων): This is said with refer- 
ence to the preceding many, “‘ being in a higher 
degree than the many a zealot.” For the tradi- 
tions, etc.: The genitive here (παραδόζεατὴ is the gen~ * 
itive of the object, denoting the matters with which 
the zeal occupied itself. These were the Pharisaic 
traditions relating to Scripture, fine distinctions in 
conduct, principle, etc., which we meet with in the 
Gospels. In designating them as his own (μου), he 
no doubt refers to those specific traditions which 
characterized his party, the Pharisees. In using 
the term “zealot,” it is not probable that he means 
to say that he belonged to the faction of the Phari- 
sees which took this name in the later Jewish times, 
and to which belonged the apostle Simon ‘‘the Ca- 
nanean ” (that is, the ‘‘ zealous,” N32), Mk. iii. 18, 
—or “the Zealot,” Luke vi. 15. Such had been his 
former life. How unlikely from a human point of 
view, that he ever should become an Apostle or a 
*Christian. No mere human means could have 
effected it. When therefore his conversion came, 
it was a work of God’s sovereign grace. 


98 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


15. But when it was the good pleasure of 
God, who separated me, even from my 
mother’s womb, and called me through 
his grace.—This work Paul grounds in the pur- 
pose of God, which here is not, as so often, referred 
to eternity, but is traced back only to the time of 
his birth. What God has done, he from the begin- 
ning of his life intended to do. But when 
(sre): when the set time of the divine counsel 
arrived. The order of thought is, (1) God deter- 
mines (ὁ ἀφορίσας) upon him as an Apostle from the 
time of his birth. (2) The call (καλέσας) comes to 
him,—referring to the experience on the way to 
Damascus. (3) The revelation (ἀποκαλύψαι) follows,— 
referring either to the experience of his conversion, 
or to experiences in close connection with it. Thus 
again it is shown how independent of men his 
apostleship was. He had it as the result of a divine 
decree and call, and through a revelation. When 
this divine work had been wrought he followed in 
the line of its indications. He did not proceed to 
fall back upon human authority and guidance, as 
might be supposed. 

16. To reveal his Son in me, that I might 
preach him among the Gentiles ; immedi- 
ately I conferred not with flesh and 
blood :—In me (ἐν ἐμοί) is variously interpreted: 
(1) instrumentally, ‘‘by means of me” (to others), 
so Lightfoot, on the ground that this makes a third — 


. 


The Divine Origin of his Gospel: 1.16. 39 


and distinct point in the actions of vv. 15 and 16. 
(2) In my soul, or in my consciousness (Ellicott, 
Meyer), denoting such a disclosure of Christ to the 
Apostle, that he became known to Paul as his own 
and the world’s Saviour. The latter view is prefer- 
able, because (a) this is the natural force of the 
preposition used (2); (ὁ) the Apostle’s experience, 
the making effectual of the divine call, would nat- 
urally be the next step of thought, rather than the 
work of Paul as an Apostle. He is dealing with 
what happened at the outset of his Christian life. 
This is the ‘‘revelation” (cf. v. 12) in which Paul 
received his ‘‘ gospel.” What may have been the 
time, method, or accompaniments, we do not pre- 
cisely know; these are subordinate questions. The 
revelation gave him that knowledge of Christ as 
Messiah and Saviour compared with which he counted 
all other things as worthless (Phil. iii. 8). The time 
came when he saw Christ in his true glory and sav- 
ing power. In that vision of the soul, all things 
were changed. He saw his former folly and wick- 
edness; the path of meritorious performance closed 
before him, and that of faith opened. Henceforth 
he seizes the principles which became central for all 
his later teaching; he has his gospel of grace and 
faith. In the revelation was contained his mission. 
When Paul saw that Christ was Messiah and 
Saviour, he saw that all narrowness and Jewish 
legalism must disappear; that Christ was the head 


40 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


of a kingdom which was to be universal. It was 
his duty to promote this kingdom as eagerly as he 
had tried to promote the legal system. Immedi- 
ately I conferred not (εὐθέως οὐ προσανεθέμην 
κι τ. 2.): The word immediately belongs to the 
four verbs following (two negative and two positive), 
and shows the course which he forthwith pursued; 
ἢ. 6. directly after his conversion and the revelation of 
Christ to him; there was no interval during which 
human means could have taught him the gospel. 
I conferred not, ‘‘did not apply to” “consult.” 
Flesh and blood (07) 12) is the Hebrew idiom 
for man,—mankind. It is several times used in 
the New Testament, denoting either the gross- 
ness of the corporeal nature (I Cor. xv. 50) or man 
in his incompetence as opposed to God, (Matt. xvi. 
1%), 

17. Neither went I up to Jerusalem to 
them which were apostles before me: 
but I went away into Arabia; and again 
I returned unto Damascus :—Neither 
went I up (οὐδὲ ἀνῆλθον): He did not .resort to the 
great seat of apostolic infiuence, Jerusalem. The 
reference in the statement, I went away, is to 
Damascus. That he should go to Jerusalem might 
have been expected. Three years intervened, how- 
ever, before he visited Jerusalem at all after his 
conversion. He designates the twelve as ‘‘ those 
who were apostles before me,” thus claiming that 


The Divine Origin of his Gospel: 1.18. 41 


priority of time was the only mark of superiority 
belonging to their office as compared with his. 
After the sojourn in Arabia, he returned to Damas- 
cus, where he has a perilous experience in being let 
down along side the city-wall in a basket. (Acts ix. 
24 seq.; 11 Cor. xi. 32 seg.) Where Paul sojourned 
in Arabia is unknown, whether in the Sinaitic 
peninsula or in some region not far from Damascus. 
Arabia was a vague term which might include re- 
gions so distant. Luke does not mention this sojourn, 
and seems to have had only an indistinct knowledge 
of the chronology of Paul’s life in the years directly 
following his conversion, as he calls the period be- 
tween his conversion and his visit to Jerusalem 
‘< certain days ” (ἡμέραι ixavai),— Acts 1x. 23,—an ex- 
pression which he could hardly have used had he 
known of this sojourn, and that the ‘‘ considerable 
. number of days” were three years. Nor do we 
know the length of time which this sojourn covered. 
It is not certain that it occupied the entire three 
years. Nor do we know its purpose. The patristic 
view was that he went into Arabia to preach. The 
modern conjecture is, that he went for meditation, 
study and thought, as a preparation for his public 
life. OAR Wait aan AS Aas tone cease ΠΝ 
18. Then after three years I went up to 
Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and tarried 
with him fifteen days.—This visit is, no doubt, 
identical with that related in Acts ix. 26-30. The 


42 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


only objection to this identification is found in the 
differences between the two narratives; but we 
have already seen that Luke’s information concern- 
ing this period must have been scanty; and it is not 
strange that, writing from a different point of view, 
his account has few points of contact with Paul’s 
own, given for a special purpose. 

In Acts are mentioned the following particulars: 
(a) Suspicion of Paul on the part of the Jerusalem 
Christians. (ὁ) Barnabas introduces him to the 
Apostles, and explains his conversion and preaching 
at Damascus. (6) Paul preached repeatedly in 
and about Jerusalem, especially to the Hellenists. 
Paul’s own account makes no allusion to (a), nor to 
(Ὁ), and states that he saw but two Apostles, Peter 
and James. Luke evidently supposed him to have 
been introduced to the whole company. It is pos- 
sible to explain this seeming difference by saying 
that all were absent from Jerusalem except Peter 
and James. Paul’s mention of two Apostles only is 
not a contradiction to the inexact expression ‘‘ the 
apostles,” (Acts ix. 27), although the two narratives, 
independently considered, would produce different 
impressions. Luke’s description of his preaching in 
and about Jerusalem gives a different impression 
from Paul’s statement that he was unknown by 
sight to the people of Judea. Luke however men- 


tions that his preaching was to a certain class, the — 


Greek-speaking Jews. After three years, 


͵ He yong 


The Divine Origin of his Gospel: 1.19. 48 


doubtless reckoned from his conversion, and not 
from his return from Arabia, since the former is 
the great event from which the narrative proceeds. 
To Visit (ictopjca) Cephas: The word rendered 
to visit is thought to be allied to the words mean- 
ing to see, and to know (ἰδεῖν, oda) and therefore 
means, primarily, — to. look into, and so to examine, 
search; whence our English word “ History.” In 
later Greek it is used of seeing in the sense of mak- 


ing the acquaintance of and occurs only here inthe _ 


ΟΝ, T. The Aramaic name Cephas is supported 
by” some of the most important authorities as 
against the majority of MSS., and is confirmed by 
11. 9-11. This name was still, no doubt, in familiar 
use. Paul’s purpose to make Peter’s acquaintance 
confirms the fact, which is otherwise attested, 
__that he had a certain precedence. Paul no doubt 
states the duration of his stay, fifteen days, as 
showing that so short a sojourn could not have been 
intended or have served for receiving instruction in 
the gospel. Both the purpose and the duration of 
the visit would tend to establish this conclusion. 
According to Luke (Acts ix. 29), he left Jerusalem 
__because of plots against his life. 

19. But other of the apostles saw I none, 
save James the Lord’s brother.—Another 
fact bears in the same direction. He saw only one 
other Apostle, James the Lord’s brother. 
This_is the man who is later called Bishop of Jeru- 


44 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


salem; the James who appears at the first apostolic 
council (Acts xv.), the writer of the Epistle, and 
the proper brother of Jesus.* The question arises, 
Is James here called an apostle? ἡ. 6. does (1) the 
word Save (εἰ μή) bear as an exception against 
I saw (cidov) only, (I saw no other Apostle; I saw 
only James)? (so Fritzsche, Winer, Wieseler), or 
(2) against the whole previous sentence (I saw no 
other of the Apostles, except that I saw James)? (So 
Meyer, Lightfoot and Ellicott). Cf. I Cor. xv. 7, 
where James is clearly spoken of as an Apostle, 
though distinguished from the twelve. That he 
saw but these two would increase the improbability 
that he learned his gospel at Jerusalem. 

20. Now touching the things which I 
write unto you, behold, before God, I lie 
not.—The aspersions of his enemies lead him to 
solemnly assert that in narrating these circum- 
stances so directly bearing upon the independence 
and validity of his apostleship, he speaks the exact 
truth. ‘The verse is loosely constructed. A literal 
translation would be: ‘‘ But what things I write 
to you, behold before God that I do not lie.” The 
sentence ‘‘that I do not,” etc., can either be under- 
stood as an anacoluthon depending on I write 
(γράφω) repeated (so Meyer); or one may suppose that 
there is implied in the words before God some 


* See Lightfoot’s Dissertation: ‘‘The Brethren of the 
Lord ”’ in his Commentary on Galatians. 


The Divine Origin of his Gospel: 1..22. 48 


such thought as: “1 call you to witness” (that) 
etc. (So Lightfoot and Wieseler). Others (as 
Ellicott and De Wette) supply such a thought as: 
“41 assert,” “41 solemnly declare ” from the context. 
This seems the most natural explanation since with 
such expressions as. before God some such word 
is generally used by Paul, and the thought of it is 
implied here, leaving the verse a graphic anacolu- 
‘thon. The R. V. omits the translation of (érz) 
(‘that ” ). 

21. Then I came into the regions of 
Syria and Cilicia.—Luke says (ix. 30) that Paul 
went from Jerusalem to Caesarea and ‘Tarsus. 
Paul’s explanations are general, the design being 
to show that he went to regions remote from Jerusa- 
lem. The two accounts coincide in that Tarsus was 
a city of Cilicia, and they in no respect conflict. 
The data are not sufficient to determine the order 
of his movements. 

This Caesarea is probably the Roman capital of 
Judea. From Caesarea he could travel either by 
land (Meyer) to Syria, (whose capital was Antioch), 
and to Cilicia in the northwest, or (Lightfoot) could 
go by sea. | 

22. And I was still unknown by face 
unto the churches of Judea which were 
in Christ:—And I was still unknown: 
That he should be unknown to the churches of 
Judea is not inconsistent with his preaching in and 


40 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


around Jerusalem (narrated by Luke, Acts ix. 28 
seq.) especially since he labored there distinctively 
among the Hellenists. To the great mass of 
Judean Christians he must have been unknown 
except by report. If, on the contrary, he had been 
a pupil of the Apostles he would naturally have as- 
sociated with the Judean Christians. 

23. But they only heard say, He that 
once persecuted us now preacheth the 
faith of which he once made havoc.— 
The force of the expression the faith here ap- 
proaches the later doctrinal usage. He preached 
the doctrine of the necessity of faith in Christ; 
meaning, however, not primarily a certain doctrine 
about Christ, but personal belief on Christ. Faith 
always means personal faith in Christ in the New 
Testament (even in Acts vi. 7) but, as Meyer says, 
it may be objectively considered; ὦ. 6., regarded as 
a principle governing conduct, requiring defense, 
etc., (Jude 3). To preach the faith is the same as 
to preach the gospel which required faith. So 
Wieseler, Meyer, Dwight (notes in Meyer’s Commen- 
tary on Romans i. 5) Ellicott. Per contra, Thayer’s 
Lexicon, Lightfoot (Com. p. 157), Pfleiderer. 

24. And they glorified God in me:—In 
me, 7. ¢., ‘in my case.” They considered Paul’s 
conversion as an occasion and ground for rendering 
praise to God. ‘There could then have been no such 
opposition between his gospel and that of the other 
Apostles as the Tiibingen critics maintain. 


yt ok Web 
dah 
tare etal 


ANALYSIS AND PARAPHRASE OF 
CHAPTER II. 


1. The approval of Paul’s Gospel by the Primitive 
Apostles, vv. 1-10.—It was fourteen years before I 
again visited Jerusalem; when I did so it was in re- 
sponse to an impulse from the Spirit and with the 
desire to be assured by the Apostles there in person 
that my teaching was acceptable to them (1, 2). 
So far from their criticising or amending my teach- 
ing they did not even require the circumcision of 
my Gentile traveling companion, Titus, (though 
in the circumstances to do this might have been 
natural and, in itself, allowable); there were, in- 
deed, those who urged it but I refused to allow it 
because of the presence of Pharisaic extremists 
who, by insisting upon the necessity of circumcision 
in order to the attainment of salvation, sought to 
restrict our freedom.as Christians from the law, and 
to put us again sitter its burdens; to have yielded 
would, in this case, have compromised the essential 
principles of the gospel, (3-5). [Verses § and § are 
a digression treating of the attitude of the extreme 
Jewish party, as contrasted with the Apostles; at 

47 


ΣΕ 


48 Analysis and Paraphrase of Chapter II. 


verse 6 the thread which was dropped for a moment 
at the end of verse 3 is resumed]. ‘The influential 
primitive Apostles [and however great their influ- 
ence or authority might be, it could not affect the 
truth and divineness of my mission, since God’s 
approval does not follow human judgment], did not 
in any way attempt to supplement or correct my 
teaching, but rather agreed that I had as truly a 
divine commission to continue my present work 
among the Gentiles as Peter to proceed with his 
among the Jews (6, 7); this conviction was based 
upon our success in our respective spheres of labor 
(8). The three who were present at this interview 
accordingly approved the course and teaching of 
myself and Barnabas, and in token of this approval 
gave us the right hand of fellowship and commended 
us in our Gentile-Christian mission (9), only urging 
us to continue mindful of the poor Christians at 
Jerusalem, and to collect from the wealthier Gentile 
churches contributions to their support, thus keep- 
ing this bond of Christian charity between the Jew- 
ish and Gentile Christians and, by so doing, help- 
ing to prevent jealousy and alienation (10). 

2. Peter’s inconsistent action at Antioch and 
Paul’s reproof of his course, vy. 11-21.—On a later 
occasion at Antioch I equally maintained my inde- 
pendence. Peter had been accustomed, when there, 
to mingle freely with the Gentile converts who. had 
not been circumcised (cf. vv. 7-9), eating at the 


Analysis and Paraphrase of Chapter II. 49. 


same table with them at the love-feasts. But cer- 
tain Judaizers, alleging the authority of James for 
their position (see notes on ver. 12), had opposed 
this fellowship with the uncircumcised, and Peter, 
on this occasion, timidly yielded to this persuasion 
and withdrew from the company. For this I 
rebuked him because he was worthy of blame 
(11, 12). The other Jewish Christians followed his 
example, not excepting my companion Barnabas 
(13). Deeply feeling that the integrity and sole 
sufficiency of the gospel was compromised by this 
action, I publicly challenged Peter in the matter as 
follows: How is it that you now deviate from your 
ordinary and normal course of freely associating 
with Gentile converts and not only renounce that 
course but go farther and by your action demand 
that even Gentiles shall live as do the Jews, that is, 
be circumcised and observe the law (14)? We Jew- 
ish Christians have long ago learned that it is faith 
in Christ, not works of law, which saves us. How 
is it, then, that you now act as if legal observance 
was also necessary, thus inconsistently, by your 
action, denying that the faith which we hold is 
sufficient (15, 16)? If now we again resort to the 
legal course may it not give occasion to say that we 
confess ourselves still unforgiven sinners and that 
Christ, so far from delivering us from sin and its 
curse, plunges us deeper into it? We cannot admit 
any such conclusion and no more can we tolerate 
4 


ὅθ Analysis and Paraphrase of Chapter II. 


any principle of action that (like yours in this case) 
gives occasion to it. The real ‘‘transgressor,” the 
> is not the man who renounces the law 
altogether and clings solely to Christ (as we all 
should), but it is he who tries to ““ build up again 
those things which he destroyed,” that is, to still 


cling to and even to insist upon the observance of 


“ sinner,’ 


the legal system whose renunciation as a means of 
salvation is logically involved in the very idea of 
Christian faith, which means the sole sufficiency and 
necessity of Christ. Hence it is the Judaizing course, 
rather than that of the Gentile Christians, which 
stamps those who pursue it as “sinners ”—unjusti- 
fied persons, by the tacit confession contained in the 
idea that something additional to faith in Christ is 
needful (17, 18). For the law itself through its 
revelation of my sin to me and its ethical death- 
sentence, slew me. I thus broke all relation to the 
law, as earthly relations are broken by death (19). 
I died to the old life and old relations with Christ 
on the cross, and yet, in a new and higher sense, I 
live; or rather, it would be more correct to say, that 
Christ lives in me, for my new spiritual life has its 
source and support in him, who, through love, gave 
himself up to death for my salvation (20). My doc- 
trine, thus, magnifies God’s grace (as is not the case 
with those who still cling to the law and to works), 
and well I may, for if men could ever have been 
justified by the) law, Christ need not have died; 


/ 


4 


se A , ν᾿ 
FURS UGG Vv 


\ 


Analysis and Paraphrase of Chapter II. δὶ 


and, since it is an axiom with all Christians that 
Christ’s death was not for naught, that fact may 
prove the entire futility of seeking righteousness in 
any other way than through faith in him (21). 


CHAPTER II. 


I. THe APPROVAL OF PaAutL’s GOSPEL BY THE 
PRIMITIVE APOSTLES, 1-10. 


On another visit to Jerusalem he had laid his 
gospel before the chief authorities there, and 
they had approved him as a divinely sent 
Apostle. : 

1. Then after the space of fourteen 
years I went up again to Jerusalem with 
Barnabas, taking Titus also with me:— 
Then might refer either to the journey to Syria 
and Cilicia (Meyer), or to his first journey to Jeru- 
salem (Wieseler), After the space of (διά), 
literally, ‘‘through.” ‘This temporal use of the 
preposition results from the conception of travers- 
ing the time. Should the fourteen years be reck- 
oned from his conversion (Wieseler, Ellicott), or 
from the first visit to Jerusalem (i. 18), (Meyer, 
Lightfoot)? The word again (πάλι) favors the 
latter view. This is the journey related in Acts 
xy., and the third visit of Paul to Jerusalem. For 
the view that it was the second, see Meyer on the 

52 


The Approval of Paul’s Gospel, οέο. : ii. 1. 53 


passage, who maintains that Paul could not have 
omitted the mention of a journey to Jerusalem here 
without breaking down his argument. Therefore 
the narrative of the journey in Acts xi. 30 and xii. 25 
is, in his opinion, only semi-historical. Paul turned 
back before reaching Jerusalem. Gal. 11. synchro- 
nizes therefore with Acts xv.; but that is the sec- 
ond, not the third journey as Luke would make it. 

The second visit (Acts xi. 27-30) was for a special 
purpose, viz., the carrying of a gift of alms to the 
poor and persecuted at Jerusalem, and Paul has no 
occasion to mention it here. This then is that visit 
during which he attended the apostolic council.* 

The following differences between the narratives 
in Acts xv. and Gal. ii. may be noted:— 

(a) Acts xy. 2 states that Paul and Barnabas were 
sent by the church of Antioch to Jerusalem; Gal. 
il, 2 makes him to go in consequence of a special 
revelation. But this representation is not incon- 
sistent with Luke, who states the historical and 
human side, while Paul, with his special pur- 
pose in mind, states the providential side of the 
event. 

(6) Acts xv. 4-7, describes a general council; Gal. 
il. 2, speaks only of a private interview with the in- 
fluential Apostles. Luke’s narrative is general, 


* For the discussion of the relation of Acts and Gala- 
tians on this point, see Lightfoot’s note on ‘‘The Later 
Visit of St. Paul at Jerusalem,’’ in his Commentary, Ὁ. 91. 


δά The Epistle to the Galatians. 


from the historical point of view. Paul’s is specific, 
with one object in mind, his relation to the 
“4 pillars.” 

(c) Acts reveals no disharmony in the delibera- 
tions. Gal. ii. 14 seg. narrates a sharp rebuke by 
Paul to Peter (at Antioch afterwards), showing, 
however, an imperfect conversion on Peter’s part to 
the more liberal view of the rights of Gentile con- 
verts. Here again Paul narrates a specific incident, 
with which Luke may not have been acquainted, or 
have had no occasion to mention. 

(d) Galatians omits all mention of the Apostles’ 
decision. This does not seem strange when it is re- 
membered that this decision was of local and tem- 
porary significance. Paul does, however, make the 
general statement, ‘‘ They added nothing to me.” 

_ The following agreements in the accounts should 
also be noticed:—(a) The places in question are the 
same,—Antioch and Jerusalem. (6) The chief per- 
sons concerned are the same,—Paul and Barnabas 
on the one hand, Peter, James, (and in Galatians) 
John, on the other. (c) The subject is the same, 
—the relation of the Gentile converts to the Jewish 
(Mosaic) law. (d) The result is the same,—the ap- 
proval of Paul’s work by the Jerusalem Apostles, 
the agreement that the Gentiles need not be cir- 
cumcised, and that Paul and his converts have spe- 
cial regard to some points which will be likely to 
promote harmony. 


Earthy Py ao 


The Approval of Paul’s Gospel, etc.: 11. 2. 55 


If the conversion of Saul occurred in the year 35, 
then the first visit to Jerusalem would fall in 38, and 
the third visit to attend the apostolic council in 52. 
With Barnabas, the regular companion of Paul 
in his missionary labors, from the time when Paul 
and Barnabas were commissioned (Acts xill. 2), 
until the ‘‘sharp contention” which occurred be- 
tween him and Paul in regard to Mark (Acts xv. 36, 
seg.). Here Paul assumes a certain precedence over 
Barnabas. LEarlier (Acts xi. xii.) Barnabas seems to 
have been the leader. Titus also, 7. 6. in addition 
to Barnabas. Titus is nowhere mentioned by name 
in the Acts, but is naturally included in the “΄ cer- 
tain others,” (Acts xv. 2). This is the first appear- 
ance of Titus in the New Testament history, but 
numerous references to him are afterward found in 
II Cor., Titus, and II Timothy. He and Timothy 
were among the most trusted of the Apostle’s 
helpers. 

2. And I went up by revelation; and 
I laid before them the gospel which’ I 
preach among the Gentiles, but privately 
before them who were of repute, lest by 
any means I should be running, or had 
run, in vain:—By revelation: Such was 
the motive of the journey to Paul. To the church 
at large, he was chosen as a deputy, as Luke nar- 
rates; but, in his own thought, his going was in obe- 
dience to a “‘revelation,” by which some inner 


56 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


experience of his own soul must be meant. What 
the form or mode of the revelation was, we do not 
know. Cf. in Acts. xxii. 17 his reference to the 
experience of a ‘‘ trance” or ecstacy; also to that of | 
a ‘‘vision” in Acts xvi. 9. In Acts xx. 23 he re- 
fers to an impulse of the Spirit, or a prophetic in- 
spiration, in which the Spirit had taught him 
through the events that were happening, how 
critical would be his situation, on another occasion, 
in Jerusalem. I laid before them the gospel 
which I preach, which I continue to proclaim 
(κηρύσσω). This gospel was the doctrine of salvation 
through Christ alone, apart from obedience to the 
Mosaic Law. More specifically, it was justification 
by faith in Christ, as opposed to justification by 
works of meritorious obedience,—the Jewish idea. 
This gospel in the form in which he taught it 
among the Gentiles, in contrast to the Judaic phase 
of Christian teaching, with emphasis, no doubt, upon 
its universality and completeness in itself, he laid 
before them who were of repute (οἱ doxoivrec), 
a. @., Peter, James and John. Why did he do this? 
The answer given is: lest by any means I 
should be running, or had run,in vain. 
Does this mean (qa) in order to correct it by the author- 
ity of the ‘‘ pillars”? ὦ. 6. lest it be found that, 
after all, he had made a mistake in his teaching. (So 
Tertullian, DeWette). This explanation would be 
contrary to the whole course of the argument, 


The Approval of Pauls Gospel, ete.: 11.2. 57 


which assumes a revelation and fixed certainty as 
the warrant of his teaching. (0) He wished to 
come to an understanding with them, because the 
Jewish views which claimed to rest on their author- 
ity might thwart his labors and make his running 
in vain. Paul does this lest his labors be rendered 
unsuccessful (Lightfoot). (c) He laid his gospel 
before them in order to learn whether, perhaps, he 
was running in vain, not as indicating uncertainty 
on his part, but as desiring to satisfy their minds 
(Thayer’s Lex. on μήπως, Meyer). View (2) takes 
the terms lest by any Means (μήπως) as indicat- 
ing purpose (= ne forte) ; view (c) as interrogative 
(=num forte). The word μήπως can be either telic or 
interrogative, and τρέχω (R. V. I should be run- 
ning) can be either indicative or subjunctive.* 
If μήπως is telic, then τρέχω is subjunctive; if inter- 
rogative, then it is indicative. ΤῸ me the view (c) 
seems more probably correct. Paul’s object was to 
secure their approval, not because he felt uncertain 
in regard to the success of his work, or feared oppo- 
sition from them, but in order that it might be 
seen that in their view also he was not laboring in 
vain. 

_ 8. But not even Titus who was with me, 
being a Greek, was compelled to be cir- 
cumcised.—The force of the argument is: But so 


* In I Thess. iii. 5, we have a mixture of indicative and 
subjunctive constructions after μήπως. 


58 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


far from it appearing that I was running in vain; so 
far from the Apostles at Jerusalem rejecting my 
gospel and disapproving my procedure; they did not 
even require the circumcision of Titus, my com- 
panion, which the Judeo-Christians, no doubt, 
desired and probably demanded. The Apostles did 
not even (οὐδέ) require this, which from a Jewish 
point of view would have been quite natural. Ac- 
cording to this interpretation, the phrase being a. 
Greek is concessive. Although he was a Gentile 
traveling with me in Judea, they did not require 
his circumcision. 'The implication seems to be that: 
the circumcision of Titus had been demanded by 
certain Judaizers; the Apostles, however, did not 
enforce the demand. It would be clearly inconsist- 
ent with Acts xv. to suppose (with the Tibingen 
critics) that it was the Apostles who made this de- 
mand. Inasmuch as Titus was a Greek, they con- 
ceded, as against the extremists, that circumcision 
was unnecessary, and this concession was proof that. 
in the judgment of the three, Paul was not running 
in vain, but was working in harmony with the 
divine plan in his Gentile ministry and in discoun- 
tenancing circumcision for the Gentile convert. 
For Paul’s conciliatory action in the case of Tim- 
othy whose mother was a Jewess, see Acts xvi. 1-3. 

4. And that because of the false breth- 
ren privily brought in, who came in priv- 
ily to spy out our liberty which we have 


The Approval of Paul’s Gospel, ete.: ii. 4. 59 


in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us 
into bondage.—The grammatical connection is 
loose throughout this and the following verses. 
The various interpretations of this verse may be 
summed up thus: (a) verse 4 gives the reason for 
the fact that Titus was not compelled to be circum- 
cised, stating it rather on the side of Paul’s non- 
permission of it (so Meyer). He was not compelled, 
that is, we did not permit him to be circumcised on 
account of the false brethren (the implied thought 
being that they had demanded it). (0) We should 
supply: I permitted it. Though the Apostles 
did not compel it, I allowed Titus to be circumcised 
on account of, as a concession to, the Judaizers 
(so Tertullian, Riickert). The fatal objection to 
this view is that it is wholly contrary to Paul’s con- 
victions upon the subject in question. Moreover, 
the very character of the persons making the de- 
mand would make the Apostle more inflexible in 
standing by his principles. (0) We are to supply: 
“‘The primitive Apostles advised me to yield, 
though they did not compel it; they advised me to 
make the concession to the weaker brethren” (so 
Lightfoot). The objection to this view is that it is 
contrary to the temper shown in the decree of Acts 
xv. 24-29, as well as grammatically quite arbitrary. 
The false brethren (cf. Acts xv. 1) were pro- 
fessedly Christians, who, however, maintained the 
erroneous idea that circumcision was necessary to 


60 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


salvation. Such were false to the distinctive prin- 
ciples of Christianity, salvation by grace through 
faith in Christ. There was a party of this kind in 
Judea who had thrown the church at Antioch, the 
chief sphere of their influence among the Gentiles, 
into great disturbance. ‘They had taken pains to 
be present and to urge their Jewish opinions. 
They are designated as brought in (παρεισάκτους), 
illegitimately added, to the Christian brotherhood, 
to which they did not properly belong. The same 
idea is repeated in came in privily (παρεισῆλθον), 
making a play on words. ‘They assumed toward 
the Pauline Christians the attitude of spies. The 
liberty in which Paul taught his converts to rejoice 
was freedom from the Mosaic law, deliverance from 
the moral bondage which it engendered, but was 
powerless to lift. This liberty they regarded with 
suspicion and restless hostility. They perpetually | 
sought to construe it as laxness and unfaithfulness 
to the Scriptures. Cf. the testimony against 
‘Stephen of the witnesses who said that he had 
spoken against Moses and the Temple, Acts vi. 13, 
14, ‘This they do,” says the Apostle, “that they ᾿ 
may bring us into bondage to the Mosaic law,” that 
is, into the helpless and hopeless condition of those 
who make the futile effort to be saved by works. 

5. To whom we gave place in the way 
of subjection, no, not for an hour; that 
the truth of the gospel might continue 


The Approval of Paul’s Gospel, etc.: ii. 5. 61 


with you.—This verse reaffirms, concerning the 
false brethren, what was already stated in verse 4, 
but in a changed construction, and with added em- 
phasis upon the fact that he and his companions, 
Barnabas and Titus, did not yield to them in the 
least. ‘The meaning is:—‘‘ Not even for an hour 
did we yield by (rendering) obedience (to their 
demand).” He refers here directly to the ex- 
tremists, the false brethren, who demanded 
the circumcision of all Gentile converts: ‘‘ We 
did not eyen (οὐδέ) yield for an hour.” Note 
that the οὐδέ of ver. 3 repels the idea that the 
Apostles were hostile; that of ver. 5 emphasizes 
the determined attitude of Paul toward the 
Pharisaic party; as if he said: The “pillar” 
Apostles by no means opposed me, but as for the 
demands of the extremists, I gave them no con- 
sideration. 

In the clause beginning, that the truth, etc. 
(iva ἡ GA. τοῦ εὐαγ.) he states the bearing of this action 
upon his Galatian readers. He affirms: “‘ We main- 
tained our ground thus firmly in order to conserve for 
you the distinctive truth of the gospel.” The Gala- 
tian Christians, as being predominantly Gentile, 
would be directly included in their fixed purpose to 
maintain the principle of freedom from the law. 
We cannot well overestimate the importance of the 
Apostle’s position upon the question at issue. He 
was the great champion of the independence, com- 


62 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


pleteness, and sufficiency of Christianity. He 
declares that it does not need to be, and must not 
be, mixed up with Mosaism, of which it is the ful- 
filment, and from which it is free. It is difficult to 
see, humanly speaking, how the church could ever 
have freed itself from the leading-strings of Juda- 
ism, and how Christianity could have developed its 
own distinctive character, but for the work of some 
such man as Paul who clearly saw the issue and 
bravely faced it. It was a question between Chris- 
tianity dominated by Jewish particularism, and 
Christianity for all men offered on moral and spir- 
itual conditions. Well might the duty to secure the 
triumph of the latter conception have for Paul the 
character of a direct revelation. 

6. But from those who were reputed to 
be somewhat (whatsoever they were, it 
maketh no matter to me: God accepteth 
not man’s person)—they, I say, who were 
of repute imparted nothing to me.—The 
student of the original text will observe that the 
grammatical structure of verses 6-10 is very irreg- 
ular. In verse 2 he had said that he laid his gospel 
before them who were of repute, but does not there - 
proceed to state definitely what attitude they took 
in respect to it. Their verdict upon his teaching is 
taken up in verse 6, beginning with, but from 
those, etc., (ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν dox.), as if he would say: ‘ but 
from those who were of repute, I received this 


The Approval of Paul’s Gospel, etc.: 11. 6. 63 


reply or decision”; but at the expression, those 
who were reputed to be somewhat (τῶν 
δοκούντων εἶναί τι), he delays the completion of his 
statement to insert the parenthetical remark that it 
does not matter to him who they are, for God does 
not judge by rank or station, and when he resumes 
the statement as to what they said, he does so as if 
forgetting that he had started with the preposition 
from (ἀπό) and resumes the sentence in new form. 
(Cf. the paraphrase prefixed to Chap. 11. Lightfoot 
has a clear paraphrase of verses 6-9, Commentary 
in loco.) They, I say, who were of repute 
(οἱ δοκοῦντες), better, perhaps, ‘‘those who are of 
repute” (in the judgment of the Galatians); 
‘‘those who appear to you as something (great).” 
The expression is slightly ironical, not as reflecting 
upon the twelve themselves, but as reflecting upon 
those to whom the Jerusalem Apostles seemed to be 
such great authorities, in comparison with Paul 
himself, The parenthetical, whatsoever they 
WeLe (ὁποῖοί ποτε ἦσαν), 18 thrown into the balance 
over against the Judeo-Christian attachment to the 
authority of the twelve. He says in effect: ‘‘ Hold 
them in as high honor as you please; it does not 
matter how great their influence and authority; I 
am independent of them. God judges not by rank, 
but has chosen me as truly as he has them.” 

There are two interpretations of whatsoever 
they [then, ποτέ] were, etc. (1.) The adverb (ποτέ) 


θ4 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


has its usual temporal force, (= olim), ‘‘ whatever 
they were once,” the reference being to their personal 
knowledge of Christ on earth. [Beza renders, olim, 
the Vulgate, aliguando], (so Luther, Olshausen, Hil- 
genfeld, Wieseler, Ewald, Lightfoot). 

It is favorable to this view that everywhere else 
in Paul the adverb (ποτέ) has its usual temporal 
force, though in classic Greek authors it is often 
equivalent to the Latin suffix cunque. (2.) The 
phrase means: “οὗ whatever sort;” ‘‘ whatever 
their pre-eminence or advantage” (= qualescunque). 
(So Meyer, Ellicott, Thayer’s Lexicon, R. V.) If 
this is the correct interpretation of the phrase, it 
could mean, whatsoever they were in any one 
of several respects: (a) in having seen Christ, 
(comes to same meaning as view above), (so Augus- 
tine). (0) Whatever they were in respect to repute 
and influence, (Meyer). The past tense (ἦσαν) may 
be considered as favoring the first view (1.), but is 
not decisive, for ‘‘ whatsoever they were” may be said 
of any time past, relative to the time of writing, 
the were (ἦσαν) pointing back from this time of 
writing to the time, for example, when he was in 
Jerusalem at the council, five or six years before. 
This (ὁ) is, on the whole, the preferable view, as 
being most in harmony with the whole context and 
situation. He has no occasion here to refer to the 
remote past, but only to the alleged superiority of 
the twelve relatively to himself. The argument is: 


The Approval of Paul’s Gospel, etc.: ii. 6. 65 


‘‘ Whatever character you may, in your preference 
and prejudice, attach to them, it matters not to 
me; I have my authority unquestionably and 
directly from Christ.” God accepteth not, etc. 
(πρόσωπον [ὁ] θ. ἀνθ. οὐ λαμβάνει): The expression, to accept 
the person or countenance, came into the New Tes- 
tament usage through the Septuagint, for the 
Hebrew 0°35 NWI, to bear, receive, or accept 
the countenance, that is, to admit to favor (said, 
6. g. of kings in their relation to subjects), and so in 
the New Testament, ‘‘to show partiality to,”—a 
force which the Old Testament expression does not 
generally bear. Examples of the bad sense, which . 
is found in the Old Testament, and which is the 
exclusive sense of the phrase in the New Testament, 
are found in Lev. xix. 15, Deut. x. 17%. From this 
expression are formed the New Testament terms, 
‘“respecter of persons” (προσωπολήπτης, Acts x. 34) and 
‘‘to have respect of persons” (προσωποληπτεῖν, Jas. 
li. 9). 

The New Testament bad sense is not, I think, to 
be attributed (with Lightfoot), to the fact that the 
word πρόσωπον at first meant a mask (and so came to 
stand for outward circumstances or appearances in 
general), but to the natural extension of the idea of 
showing favor to that of exercising partiality, a step 
of thought actually made in several Old Testament 
passages. 
Imparted nothing to me, etc.—Now for the 

5 


66 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


first time is stated just what the primitive Apostles 
did or did not do in view of the explanation by Paul 
of his teaching (verse 2), and with the grammatical 
peculiarity that it is now introduced asa ground 
(γάρ) for the statement in the parenthesis that 
“God shows partiality to no one.” The word ren- 
dered I say (γάρ) strictly assigns a reason for some- 
thing that has been stated. The irregular construc- 
tion of the passage gives rise to several interpreta- 
tions of the word (vép).(@)The proof that God does 
not show partiality is, that the other Apostles recog- 
nized his equality with themselves; they communi- 
cated nothing to him by way of supplementing his 
teaching (so Meyer). (4) The sentence assigns the 
reason for the statement, it maketh no matter 
tO ME (οὐδέν μοι διαφέρει); ““1ὖ does not matter to me 
what preference you assign to the twelve, they, as a 
matter of fact, asserted no such pre-eminence by 
adding to my teaching,” (so Alford). (ce) The 
“‘for” may be considered as explicative; ‘‘to me it 
is certainly a fact, that whatever they have done 
for others, they have added nothing to my gospel,” 
(so Ellicott). Meyer, in my judgment, takes the 
words naturally, and does not attempt to lessen the 
grammatical peculiarity. They imparted 
nothing to me (οὐδὲν προσανέθεντο) means, they did 
not supplement my teaching as if it needed correc- 
tion or addition. This statement is the nerve of 
the whole argument, and constituted a complete 


ete ἀν 
O° 4, 


The Approval of Paul’s Gospel, etce.: ii. ἢ. ΟἿ 


refutation of the position of the Apostle’s opponents 
and critics. 

7. But contrariwise, when they saw 
that I had been intrusted with the gospel 
of the uncircumcision, even as Peter with 
the gospel of the circumcision.—So far from 
correcting my teaching, we came, continues the 
Apostle, to a good understanding and agreement. 
When they saw (probably as the result of Paul’s 
explanations, or perhaps, from the known results of 
Paul’s preaching) that his mission too was a di- 
vinely ordained one, and that they and he had been 
assigned by divine providence to different spheres 
of acommon work. The expressions, the gospel 
of the uncircumcision, and the gospel of 
the circumcision (τὸ ebay. τῆς ἀκροβυστίας͵---τῆς περι- 
τομῆς) are to be understood, not as different gospels, 
but as the one gospel defined according to these two 
spheres of its operation;—the Gentile and the Jew- 
ish world. The division of labor was not made on 
doctrinal grounds, nor was it strictly a geographical 
division, but rather an ethnographical one. The 
student of the original should notice that ra εὐαγγέλιον 
is accusative with the passive πεπίστευμαι, see Butt- 
mann, p. 189. Cf. Rom. ili. 2, where λόγια is accusa- 
tive, not nominative. Peter is singled out as the 
representative of the Jewish apostolate, for though 
he was the first preacher to the Gentiles (Acts xv. 7), 
his life-work, certainly up to this time, was chiefly 


68 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


among Jews, and in his sympathies he seemed to 
cling to the Jewish phase of Christianity. 

8. (For he that wrought for Peter 
unto the apostleship of the circumcision 
wrought for me also unto the Gentiles) :— 
He that wrought (ὁ ἐνεργήσας, 7. 6. God) for 
Peter, or in his behalf, ἡ. 6. to render successful 
the apostleship of the circumcision (ὦ. e., his work 
among the circumcised) wrought also for me, to the 
end of making successful my apostleship to the 
Gentiles. The exact carrying out of the parallelism 
would require ‘‘ for the apostleship of the Gentiles.” 
The dative for Peter is, as Ellicott explains, not 
_ governed by the preposition (ἐν) in composition with 
the verb (évepyjoac,) since this verb is not a pure 
compound, but is dative commodi. 

9. And when they perceived the grace 
that was given unto me, James and Cephas 
and John, they who were reputed to be 
pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right 
hands of fellowship, that we should go 
unto the Gentiles, and they unto the 
circumcision.—The phrase when they per- 
ceived (γνόντες) takes up the thought and construc- 
tion begun with when they saw (ἰδόντες) in verse 
7. ‘The grace which they perceived in Paul was 
the evident favor of God which had in their judg- 
ment authenticated his apostleship. It is noticeable 
that James here stands first, as Cephas certainly 


The Approval of Paul’s Gospel, etc.: 11. 9. 69 


had at i. 18,19. Some writers maintain that in 
matters relating to the apostolic College, Peter 
stands first, but in matters done at the Jerusalem 
church, James, its pastor, takes the pre-eminence. 
It is doubtful whether this distinction can be suc- 
cessfully defended for here certainly the act of the 
three is an act on behalf of all the Apostles present 
and of the whole council, and not of the Jerusalem 
church. In any case, James, the Lord’s brother, 
rivalled Peter in prominence,—a distinction to which 
his relation to Jesus as well as his great zeal and 
excellence no doubt contributed. The point that 
he is not now called the Lord’s brother, because 
between the first visit (i. 19) and this, James the 
son of Alphaeus had suffered martyrdom, making it 4 οἵ. 
unnecessary to distinguish this James, is better 
taken; but the omission is sufficiently explained by 
the simple fact that, having once given him this 
specific designation, it was not necessary to do so 
again in the immediate connection. In the word 
pillars (στῦλοι) is implied the figure of a building. 
These three Apostles had the reputation of being 
the chief supports of the church and they, no 
doubt, were the most prominent and influential of 
the apostolic company at that time; from our 
point of view, however, Paul surpasses them all in 
these respects. Right hands of fellowship 
(δεξιὰς κοινωνίας): The term right hands has no 
article because the phrase to give right hands 


0 ᾿ς The Epistle to the Galatians. 


(def. διδόναι) is a stereotyped phrase. The phrase of 
fellowship is a defining genitive,—right hands ex- 
pressive of fellowship. In the original text κοινωνίας 
is so far removed from δεξιάς in order to bring it near 
to the clause of purpose (iva seg.) which follows, as 
indicating the meaning of the fellowship expressed. 
Thus the phrase that we should go, etc. (ia seq.) 
logically depends upon the idea of fellowship and 
expresses the purpose of the agreement which was 
involved in the extension of the right hand, thus: 
“«'They gave us the right hand of fellowship expres- 
sive of the agreement that we goto the Gentiles, 
they to the Jews.” In the final clause (ia seq.), 
there is an ellipsis of the thought, that we 
should go (πορευθῶμεν), which the sense readily sup- 
plies. This general definition of the two spheres 
for the two branches of the apostolate in no way 
involved an exclusive adherence to Gentile commu- 
nities for Paul. He never abandoned the maxim, 
“ΤῸ the Jew first and also the Greek.” (Rom. 
i. 16 e¢ al.) The purpose of the council was met 
in reaching this general decision. Paul was to 
proceed with his work as before; so were the twelve. 
The council changed nothing. It approved Paul’s 
ministry among the Gentiles, and proclaimed that 
the burdens which the extreme Jewish Christians 
wished to impose upon them should not be im- 
posed. This decision was sufficient for Paul, both 
in respect to his public ministry, and in re- 


The Approval of Ῥαινιδ Gospel, ete.: ii. 10. 71 


gard to his personal justification as a genuine 
Apostle. 

10. Only they would that we should 
remember the poor; which very thing I 
was also zealous to do :—Only they would 
that (μόνον iva, «,7.4.): This clause depends upon the 
implied thought in the phrase ‘‘ right hands of fel- 
lowship,” in the same way as does the previous clause 
of purpose. They gave the right hand of fellowship 
expressive of agreement (in general) that, etc., only 
with this one specification that we should re- 
member the poor. It is needless to supply any 
verb. This specific agreement to remember the 
poor related to the poor of Jerusalem and Judea. 
They were careful to insert among the terms this 
one limitation that Paul and Barnabas should not 
consider their Gentile apostleship as exempting them 
from securing aid for the poor of the circumcision; 
further than that they specified nothing. Their 
poverty was, no doubt, occasioned in part by perse- 
cution and perhaps also by the improvidence which 
the expectation of the speedy return of Christ had 
fostered (cf. II Thess. iii. 10-12), and probably, 
still further, by the working of the policy of a com- 
munity of goods (Acts iv. 32-87). This remem- 
brance of the poor is not mentioned in the Acts. 
It belonged to the more private compact made 
with the three. Paul had already (Acts xi. 29, 30) 
brought aid to the poor of Jerusalem, and they took 


72 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


a pledge of him that he would continue his interest 
and efforts, and he did so; cf. Acts xxiv. 17 (his 
fifth and last visit to Jerusalem). Which very 
thing (ὃ αὐτὸ τοῦτο); ~Note the emphatic repetition. 
The change from plural (we should remember) 
to singular (I was zealous), is probably occa- 
sioned by the fact that before any effort occurred to 
carry out the agreement he and Barnabas had sepa- 
rated (Acts xv. 39). Strictly speaking, we have no 
individual instance confirmatory of the words, I 
Was zealous (ἐσπούδασα), because the case in Acts 
xi. 29, 30 occurred before the assembling of the 
council, and the others (I Cor. xvi. 3; Acts xxiv. 17) 
after the writing of the Epistle; (unless we suppose, 
with Lightfoot, that I Cor. was written before 
Galatians, in which case I Cor. xvi. 1-3 would be 
very much in point, since it would show that the 
Galatians themselves had shortly before the time of 
writing been solicited to contribute). We are prob- 
ably to regard the cases mentioned as illustrations 
of the Apostle’s practice and constant willingness 
in the matter. 


II. Prter’s INCONSISTENT ACTION AT ANTIOCH 
AND PAUL’s REPROOF OF His CouRsgs, vv. 11-21. 


11. But when Cephas came to Antioch, 
I resisted him to the face, because he 
stood condemned :—But when Cephas 
came to Antioch, etc.: After the council Paul 


Peter’s Inconsistent Action, etc.: 11. 11. 73 


and Barnabas returned to Antioch to deliver the de- 
cision (Acts xy. 30, seg.) and continued there for 
some time. During this sojourn, Peter came to 
Antioch,—a fact not mentioned by Luke. I re- 
sisted him to the face (κατὰ πρόσωπον αὐτῷ ἀντέστην), 
“‘T stood against him to the face,” denoting the 
directness and sharpness of ‘the reproof. Paul 
‘faced’ him in opposition and rebuke. The 
phrase κατὰ πρόσωπον does not mean ‘‘ in the presence 
(of all) ” (Erasmus, Beza), much less (= κατὰ σχῆμα), 
‘‘in appearance” (Chrysostom, Theodoret). Be- 
cause he stood condemned (ὅτι κατεγνωσμένος ἦν): 

The verb here used Cearapniebey means to inquire 
into (judicially) 7. 6. to accuse or to condemn. 
Paul’s strenuous opposition to Peter favors the 
stronger meaning here. ‘‘ Because he was (or stood) 
condemned,” not condemned by himself, nor by 
God, primarily, but by the Christian public of An- 
tioch. The A. V. “was to be blamed,” is too weak, 
and gives to the passive participle the force of the 
ending of the verbal adjective which it cannot bear. 
This translation resulted, perhaps, from a desire to 

__minimize this difficulty between the Apostles. 

12. For before that certain came from 
James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but 
when they came, he drew back and sepa- 
rated himself, fearing them that were of 
the circumcision :—For before that, etc., 
(po τοῦ yap ἐλθεῖν); explanatory of Paul’s opposition, 


74 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


and especially of the condemnation accorded to 
Peter. After Peter’s vision (Acts x. 10, seqg.), he 
had avowed the principle (x. 34, 35) that God is no 
respecter of persons, but that in every nation he 
that feareth him and worketh righteousness is ac- 
ceptable to him, and had mingled freely in social 
intercourse with the converted heathen,—a proceed- 
ing which provoked objection from the Jewish 

party (Acts xl. 2,3). Here at Antioch he was met 
again by the same criticism, and yielded to it. In 
so doing he acted contrary to the lesson of his 
vision. ‘The objection rested on the Pharisaic dis- 
tinction of clean and unclean which had been used 
against Jesus (Luke xv. 2), and which he had 
undermined by his teaching that not outward con- 
tact but inner character, thoughts, motives, and 
the deeds in which they issue, can defile a man. 
The lesson of the vision had been designed to abol- 
ish this distinction of clean and unclean (Acts x. 
12-15). His action at Antioch was inconsistent 
with his former conduct which he had defended 
(Acts xi. 4, seg.). It was a yielding to Jewish prej- 
udice and narrowness which Paul regarded as a 
violation of Christian principle, and a contradiction 
to Peter’s position in the council where he had de- 
fended Gentile freedom and declared that God had 
put no difference between them and the Jews (Acts 
xv. 8-10). He did eat with, etc., (συνήσθιεν): The 


imperfect tense denotes his former customary action 


feet a a phate 


Peter’s Inconsistent Action, etc. : ii. 12. 78 


and included, if it did not chiefly refer to, the love- 
__ feasts (ἀγάπαι), in connection with which the Lord’s 
__Supper was observed. To make on these occasions 
the separation which Peter’s conduct logically im- 
plied and recommended, was to divide the church 
in that symbol of fellowship which best signified its 
_ unity and brotherhood. The difference between 

~ Paul and the Jewish Christian party was not as to 
whether the Gentiles should receive the gospel, for 
all agreed in this; but it was, as to whether they 
must also embrace the Jewish religion by being cir- 
_cumceised and keeping the Mosaic law in addition 
to “to exercising faith in Christ. This was the practi- 
cal question between Paul and the Judaizers. 

The extreme Pharisaic “party reasoned thus: ‘So 
long as they do not so obey the law, are they not 
unclean? How, then, can we associate with them? 
Must they not remain separate from us?” This 
view made full Christian fellowship dependent upon 
a ritualistic prerequisite. - They acknowledged the 
Gentiles as Christians, but they had not been cir- 
cumcised. ‘They, therefore, denied them full fel- 
lowship. ‘To this view James seems to have been, 
of all the apostolic company, the most inclined, 
although it is certain that he was ready to concede 
to Paul that the Gentile converts need not take 
upon them the burdens of the law. The point in 
regard to full fellowship had not been decided in 
the council, although the spirit of the decision cer- 


76 | The Epistle to the Galatians. 


tainly looked strongly toward equality and full fel- 
lowship of Jews and Gentiles. Paul must now 
carry this point on which Peter wavered, else all 
that had been gained might have been lost. The 
Judeo-Christian opinion was a weak one, springing 
from a defective appreciation of certain teachings 
of Christ and an imperfect understanding of the na- 
ture and destination of the gospel, but it was a 
natural one, and illustrates Christ’s saying: ‘‘ No 
one having drunk old wine desireth new: for he 
saith, The old is good” (Luke v. 39), indicating 
the slowness with which the Christian world was 
able to break loose from Jewish particularism, and 
to grasp the full import and scope of the truth that 
Christianity was not a patch to be sewed upon the 
old garment of Judaism, but a new and perfect gar- 
ment, and that, since it was the fulfillment of the 
law and the prophets, it was complete in itself and 
must abrogate the Mosaic system. 

The phrase from James (ἀπὸ Ἰακώβου) should 
probably go with came (ἐλθεῖν). These persons (ef. 
them that were of the circumcision, infra) 
had come down from Jerusalem to spy out the lib- 
erty of the Gentile Christians. It is not said that 
they were sent by James for this purpose (Meyer), 
but they may have been. If so, we may hold, (a) 
that they abused their mission, since it can hardly 
be supposed that James would feel called upon to 
institute such proceedings (cf. Acts xv. 24). Or, it 


ΠΥ baud to ue © 
ce. a a 


Peter’s Inconsistent Action, ete. 2 11, 122) TF 


may be thought that they were zealots for the law 
who represented the view of James in reference to 
the subject of fellowship with the uncircumcised. 
In either case they would not be strictly identical 
cumcision was necessary to salvation. He drew 
back (ὑπέστελλεν) and separated (ἀφώριζεν) him- 
self: The imperfect tenses describe what he pro- 
ceeded to do, as if he were gradually overcome by 
their persuasions and objections. Fearing 
them, 7. ¢., fearing to excite the displeasure and 
disapprobation of the Jewish Christians, who had 
come to Antioch from Jerusalem. The statement. 
that Peter was overawed by the Pharisaic party, is 
Paul’s version of Peter’s action. To Peter it was. 
doubtless only caution, or accommodation (which 
Paul also practiced), but to Paul it was cowardice 
and inconsistency, involving a breach of Christian 
principle, viz., the full access of the Gentiles to all 
the benefits of the gospel on the same conditions. 
with the Jews, and consequently their equal rights 
to full Christian fellowship ‘‘ apart from deeds of 
the law.” 

13. And the rest of the Jews dissembled | 
likewise with him; insomuch that even | 
Barnabas was carried away with their 
dissimulation.—He here states two circum- 
stances which were, in great part occasioned by 
Peter’s action:—(1) The Jewish Christians at Antioch 


78 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


who had formerly felt no scruple about mingling 
with the Gentile Christians, now followed Peter and 
those who had come from James, and thus a schism 
was produced. (2) Even Barnabas, Paul’s compan- 
ion, was carried away by their inconsistent action. 
Here again the conduct of these persons is referred 
to by Paulin his apology, which is not free from 
polemic, as dissimulation, hypocrisy (ὑπόκρισις). 
It did not have this character to Peter and the 
others. It was the result of human prejudice and 
weakness, and in the case of Peter, it was, as Calo- 
vius says, an actio, non habitus. It was, however, 
hypocrisy, in the sense that it was playing a part 
inconsistent with principles which they had for- 
merly accepted and practiced; logically it was infi- 
delity to Christianity which deserved unsparing 
rebuke. Peter’s hypocrisy consisted in constraining 
the Gentile converts to act the Jew (Ἰουδαίζειν) (v. 14), 
contrary to his previously avowed convictions. It 
is to be noticed that Acts and Galatians clearly rep- 
resent his conviction as in agreement with Paul, 
and his Judaizing action as an inconsistency with 
that conviction, and not (as the Tiibingen criticism 
assumes) that his Judaizing was according to his 
conviction, and his Pauline action an exception 
to his custom. Then all his ordinary action, as 
Acts and Galatians represent it, would have been 
“<hypocrisy,” and this withdrawal from the Gentiles 
his one act of perfect consistency. The Tibingen 


poe >a 
aa 


Peter’s Inconsistent Action, etc.: ii. 14. 79 


criticism here simply sets aside the testimony which 
the New Testament contains on the subject includ- 
ing that of Paul’s most polemic letter, and replaces 
it by a subjective theory of its own. The “ hypoc- 
risy ” ascribed to Peter does not necessarily imply a 
CONSCIOUS inconsistency with principle, but it clearly 
designates Peter’s action as really such, in the judg- 
ment of the Apostle to the Gentiles. 

14. But when I saw that they walked 
not uprightly according to the truth of 
the gospel, I said unto Cephas before © 
them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest as do 
the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, how 
compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do 
the Jews?—They walked not uprightly 
(οὐκ ὀρθοποδοῦσιν, ““ 0 walk straight”): The figure is 
of keeping to a path or line, hence ““ to act rightly 
according to the gospel.” This departure from 
gospel truth Paul rebukes openly, before them 
all (ἔμπροσθεν πάντων). Peter’s attitude was public 
and far-reaching in its influence. Paul would re- 
buke it and show its inconsistency before the assem- 
bled Christian community at Antioch. If thou, 
the if supposes the case so well known to be true. 
The sense is: ‘* You, Peter, are a born Jew; yet you 
are accustomed to live (ζῇς) in a Gentile manner 
(ἐθνικῶς) not as a Jew (Ἰουδαικῶς) that is, to do as 
Gentiles do in reference to such questions as this of 
eating with the uncircumcised. If, then, although 


80 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


you are a native Jew, you are wont to discard Jew- 
ish scruples, how can you justify yourself in now, by 
your example, constraining those who are not native 
Jews to adopt Jewish customs?” ‘There are two 
degrees of inconsistency here: (1) that implied in 
the condition, his own inconsistency with himself; 
(2) that contained in the conclusion of the sentence, 
his effort to constrain the Gentiles into harmony 
with his scruples. Paul says in effect:—Your own 
customary action would not even warrant your con- 
straining Jewish Christians to hold by Jewish scru- 
ples; much more is that action inconsistent which 


constrains Gentiles to do so. Compellest (ava7- 


κάζεις), Yeferring to that moral constraint which 
comes from example and influence. The action of 
Peter, by reason of his position, amounted to a con- 
straining force in regard to such a vexed question 
as this, concerning which there was so much unclear 
discernment and blindly zealous prejudice. To 
live as do the Jews (τουδαίζειν = “‘to play the 
Jew”). This word touches the heart of the question 
in dispute, a question almost of destiny for the early 
church. Must the Gentile converts also become 


Jews? Must Christianity have Judaism added to 


itself before it became the perfect religion? Was 
Christianity thus deficient? Paul resisted this view 
and the course of Christian history justified his 
position. 

Vvs. 15-21 are general statements, but are ad- 


Roe Ὁ» 
» VT) Zale 


Peter’s Inconsistent Action, efe.: 11.15. 81 


dressed to Peter, not to the Galatians, to whom he 
directly turns only at iii. 1. The object of Paul in 
these verses is to show that although Jewish Chris- 
tian converts like himself and Peter belong to the 
so-called chosen people, yet, as a matter of fact, in 
becoming Christians they have confessed that sal- 
vation is not by their law, but only by Christ, and 
this step logically involves the uselessness for the 
attainment of salvation of all legal works and the 
wrong of imposing them on Christians. Paul op- 
poses to Peter’s action, not merely arguments, but 
the whole nature and meaning of the Christian life 
upon which Peter has himself entered. 

15. We, being Jews by nature, and not 
sinners of the Gentiles, may be regarded 
as a concessive conditional sentence to which 
v. 16, seg., forms a conclusion, thus:—(ver. 15) 
‘True, we are born Jews, and not Gentile ‘sin- 
ners,’ aS we native Jews are accustomed to call 
them; (ver. 16) yet we have broken with our old re- 
ligion, and have taken the ground that salvation is 
through Christ alone. How inconsistent then to 
impose the burdens of that system which we have 
ourselves resigned upon ourselves and our converts. 
If you, Peter, put a high price upon Jewish privi- 
leges and connections, I have to remind you that we 
have voluntarily surrendered them in becoming 
Christians, and that we cannot go back to them 
without falseness to our Christian decision and posi- 

6 


82 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


tion.” There is a touch of subtle irony in verse 15. 
If the Greek language had possessed quotation 
marks, the word ‘“‘sinners” (ἁμαρτωλοῦ would, no 
doubt, have been designated by them, since the 
word voices the popular Jewish idea of the Gentiles. 

16. Yet knowing that a man is not jus- 
tified by the works of the law, save 
through faith in Jesus Christ, even we 
believed on Christ Jesus, that we might 
be justified by faith in Christ, and not by 
the works of the law: because by the 
works of the law shall no flesh be justi- 
fied.—The first part of this verse illustrates 
ἃ mixture of two constructions. (1) “A man 
is not justified except through faith,” and (2) “A 
man is not justified by works of law but by 
faith.” We have a combination of these two: 
“Α man is not justified dy works of law except 
through faith.’* The works of the law 
(ἔργα νόμου), ὃ. €., deeds of obedience to the Mosaic 
law contemplated as a ground of acceptance with 
God. The real reason for this denial of their justi- 
fying power is found in Rom. viii. 3. There are 
two conceivable modes of salvation, (a) that by 


* The two constructions in Greek would be: ob δικαιοῦται 
ἀνθ. ἔαν μὴ διὰ πίστεως, and, οὐ dik, ’avO, ’e& ἔργων νόμου ἄλλα διὰ 
πίστεως. In the mixed construction of the text éav μή 
logically belongs not to the whole preceding sentence, but 
only to ov δικαιοῦται. 


Nea 
Ἐν» ν ᾿ 
yes ὮΝ γεν 


Peter’s Inconsistent Action, etc.: 11.106. 83 


works or merit, on the principle of guid pro quo, in 
which case a man ‘‘ hath whereof to glory ” (Rom. 
iv. 2); and (0) that by grace through faith, trust or 
self-surrender. We Christians, says Paul, have 
abandoned the former principle as impracticable on 
account of the power of sin which dwells in the 
flesh, and which prevents our perfect fulfillment of 
the law’s requirements, without which justification 
by its deeds is impossible, and have adopted the 
other. Even We (αὶ ἡμεῖς), Paul and Peter, who are 
genuine Jews. This lays emphasis upon the personal 
acceptance by Peter and Paul of the principle of jus- 
tification by faith only. In believing on Christ we 
have broken with the old system and have re- 
nounced the possibility of salvation in the way in 
which we formerly held it as Jews. We are com- 
mitted to the way of faith as the way to justifica- 
tion. Notice the two forms of thought, through 
faith (διὰ 7.) and by faith ἡ. 6. ‘“‘from” or “out of ” 
(ἐκ π.), the former denoting the relation of faith as 
that through the operation of which the righteous 
state is entered, the latter designating the right- 
eousness as originating in faith. This last phrase 
cannot mean, however, that faith is the producing 
source of righteousness, which is always a ‘“right- 
eousness which comes from God as its source” 
(δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ, Rom. 111. 21), but signifies the procur- 
ing cause on man’s part, so that righteousness is 
said to proceed from faith in the sense that it is at- 


84 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


tained in the line of faith (as opposed to works). 
Paul ordinarily uses the former phrase; the latter 
(ἐκ πίστεως) perhaps arising as correlative to ‘from 
works,” ᾿εῷ ἔργων (as here), or more probably as con- 
forming to the Septuagint translation of Paul’s 
favorite text (see Rom. 1. 17). The phrase “‘upon 
faith ” (ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει) also occurs (Philip. iii. 9). By 
the works of the law shall no flesh be jus- 
tified, assigns the Old Testament authority for our 
knowledge that a man is not justified by legal ob- 
servance and for our consequent action in adopting 
another principle. So Wieseler, Lightfoot, Elli- 
cott, vs. Meyer, who argues from the absence of a 
formula of quotation, and from the variation of the 
words from the supposed quotation (Ps. cxliii. 2) 
that no Scripture proof is intended. But the varia- 
tion of the words from the LXX. (οὐ δικαιωθήσεται ἐνώ- 
πιόν cov πᾶς ζῶν, Cf. our text) is much less marked than 


is frequently the case in Paul’s quotations, and it is ~ 


by no means a universal habit of Paul to use a 
formula of quotation. Of. Rom. iii. 20 where the 
same words with the addition of ‘‘ before him” 
(ἐνώπιαν αὐτοῦ) are used in proof, and without any 
formula of quotation, and concerning which Meyer 
says (in loco) that Paul has Ps. exliii. 2 in mind. 
If so there, why not here also? On the use of this 
passage 1 would remark: (1) Literally translated, it 
would be, ‘‘ For before thee, no man living is 
righteous” (Toy, Perowne). The LXX. renders 


Peter’s Inconsistent Action, etc.: ii. 16. 88 


(Π 7229 ΡΊ Ν Ὁ 3) “shall not be justi- 
fied, ” ete. (οὐ δικαιωθήσεται) and this meaning is followed 
by both our English versions. (2) The Psalm passage 
refers to the universal sinfulness of men. ‘“‘ Enter 
not into judgment with thy servant, for no living 
man stands blameless before thee.” Paul by con- 
necting the expression with the phrase, “‘by works 
of law,” (both here and in Rom. iii. 20), has applied 
the passage to justification by faith. (8) The 
term ‘‘all flesh ” (πᾶσα σάρξ =W3-7D) is a familiar 
Hebraism for the actual Septuagint reading (πᾶς 
ζῶν). The construction ‘‘all flesh shall not be jus- 
tified ” (οὐ δικ, πᾶσα σάρξ) is an exact imitation of the 
Hebrew construction, and means ‘‘no flesh shall be 
justified” or “no one shall be” (οὐδεὶς δικαιωθήσεται).. 
The negative οὐ is to be understood as standing in 
closest connection with its verb. 

Respecting the Pauline doctrine of justification, 
it should here be observed (1) that the word “ jus- 
tify ” (δικαιοῦν) in the New Testament is connected 
through the LXX. with the causative forms (Hiphil 
or Piel) of the Hebrew verb meaning “to be right- 
eous” (5) which prevailingly mean in the Old 


Testament, ‘“‘to declare, or pronounce righteous,” 


*‘to acquit from guilt and blame.” ‘‘To justify ” 
is, with Paul, a forensic term, and accordingly 
justification is expounded by judicial analogies 
chiefly. (2) ‘‘ Righteousness” (δικαιοσύνη) is the 


status or character of one whom God thus pro- 


86 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


nounces just (δίκαιος). He is acquitted, forgiven, de- 
clared free. His relation to God is now denoted by 
“righteousness.” (3) Faith in Christ is the condi- 
tion on which God pronounces the judgment of 
justification. Paul’s usual statement is that faith 
is reckoned to the believer ‘‘for righteousness ” 
(εἰς dux.). (See especially Rom. iv). The two expres- 
sions, ‘‘faith is reckoned,” and ‘‘ righteousness is 
reckoned,” are synonymous. The meaning is that, 
on condition of faith, God regards and treats the 
sinner as if righteous, as if he was what he ought to 
be; or, in other words, righteousness is reckoned to 
him, set over to his account. This means that faith 
is that attitude of mind and heart which makes it 
possible for God to treat the sinner so much better 
than he deserves as to acquit him before the law 
and pronounce him righteous, though, from the 
standing-point of his mere personal merit, he is not 
yet such. (4) The righteousness of Christ is never 
said to be imputed to the believer, not even in 
Phil. ii. 9, where the Apostle explains the ‘‘ right- 
eousness of his own” by calling it ‘‘a righteousness 
which is by the law.” The doctrine of the imputa- 
tion of Christ’s righteousness has been obtained by 
carrying out and developing the analogies which 
constitute the form of Paul’s thought into a full 
system. This theological formula rests upon infer- 
ences drawn from Paul’s language, and is to be dis- 


tinguished from the Pauline doctrine proper, in 


Peter’s Inconsistent Action, etc.: ii. 16. 87 


which no statement which is the equivalent of it 
isfound. (5) The interpretation which gives full 
weight to the legal or juridical form of Paul’s 
teaching concerning justification, is the correct one. 
It is possible, however, to lay an undue stress upon 
the formal element of Paul’s doctrine, the Jewish 
moulds into which it was run, and not enough upon 
its substance, the ethical and spiritual truths which 
are the content of its outer form. May not theol- 
ogy distinguish between the inherited Jewish 
moulds of Paul’s thought, and the vital and essen- 
tial truths which those moulds contain? It seems 
to be the excessive emphasis of legal analogies in 
this sphere of doctrine which has imparted to the 
Protestant doctrine of justification, in the judg- 
ment of many profound theologians, an appearance 
of arbitrariness and even of injustice, according to 
which righteousness is merely the result of a 
declaration and not an ethical reality. To such a 
one-sided view, we think, a candid study of Paul’s 
teaching, as a whole, will not lead. 

(6) Many modern theologians, in their reaction 
from the formal, judicial aspect of justification, 
have erred as much in regard to exegetical exact- 
ness as the older Reformed theologians sometimes 
did in doctrinal formalism and _ one-sidedness. 
While the latter identified Paul’s Jewish thought- 
forms with the whole truth, and then built 
wholly upon them, the former have commonly over- 


88 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


looked them, or have subjected the Apostle’s lan- 
guage to unnatural interpretations in order to elimi- 
nate this element. It is desirable to expound the 
moral and spiritual truths and experiences which 
form the content or ethical counterpart of Paul’s 
legal system, but exegesis is, first of all, a study of 
form, and must not, for any supposed or real theo- 
logical interest, eliminate or disregard the peculiari- 
ties of the writer’s modes of thought and expression, 
however subordinate it may suppose them to be to 
the spiritual facts involved. The error, on the 
one side, is in supposing it necessary to limit 
all theological thought to the Jewish thought- 
forms of the Apostle Paul; that, on the other, 
lies in not acknowledging and emphasizing those 
thought-forms just as they are. I venture to 
think that what is needed, both for theology and 
exegesis, is a clearer perception of the Jewish for- 
mal element in Paul’s modes of thought and argu- 
ment and an equally clear discernment and recogni- 
tion of his clear, strong grasp upon the facts of the 
spiritual life which correspond to the judicial pro- 
cesses through which, in accord with his Jewish train- 
Ing, he conceives of the believer as passing. The 
figurative language, the analogies which the Apostle 
draws from the law or the current thought of his time, 
are of first importance for exegesis, while for theology 
they yield to the deeper truths of spiritual life and 
experience which they serve to illustrate or convey. 


Peter’s Inconsistent Action, efc.: 11.1%. 89 


17. But if, while we sought to be justi- 
fied in Christ, we ourselves also were 
found sinners, is Christ a minister of sin? 
God forbid.—Paul is still engaged in refuting 
Peter’s position. There are two interpretations of 
the word sinners (ἁμαρτωλοί): (a) It is the same as 
in ver. 15, sinners from the Jewish point of 
view (= Gentiles). (0) It means primarily sinners 
in fact, as opposed to ‘‘ righteous ” (δίκαιοι). If the 
former interpretation be given, the protasis of the 
sentence would seem to mean, “‘ If when seeking to 
be justified in Christ, even we ourselves (Jews) were 
found to be ‘sinners’ (ὦ. 6. tostand on the same level 
as the Gentiles), then might not one conclude that 
Christ is the minister of sin? We abandon the law 
and betake ourselves to Christ. We confess the in- 
adequacy of our legal righteousness, and resort to 


Christ for justification, butim-vain. We find our- ἫΝ 


selves on the plane of Gentile ‘sinners , and-thar is 
eH.” eA it m might, be said that, Christ, was-te- 


tu 


neces : at-faiiiyre;sameed 15. ΠΩ a minister of 
sin ais ‘Hogical ats (so Lightfoot). This 
view lays the main emphasis in the word ‘‘sin- 
ners” on the idea of sinners from the Jewish point 
of view, meaning those who have abandoned the 
law. | 
If on the other hand the word sinners means pri- 
marily sinners really, 7. e. before God, unjustified 
men, as opposed to “‘ righteous,” the sense would seem 


onrr 


90 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


to be: If our effort to be justified im Christ left us 
just where we were before, would not Christ be a 
minister of sin because he led us to abandon our ef- 
forts to obtain legal righteousness, and then did not 
safely conduct us to the goal by any other way? 
The Apostle then answers:—Let this conclusion 
never be drawn; 7. 6. the supposition on which it 
rests is false. Christ does not leave us sinners as he 
found us, but leaves us ‘‘ just ” (δίκαιο). (So Meyer, 
Ellicott). In this case the words God forbid 
(μὴ γένοιτο) Negative the whole verse; in the other 
view, they negative only the illogical conclusion 
sought to be based upon the supposition made. In 
the former case the question: Is Christ a minister 
of sin, supposes a distinctly negative answer. In the 
latter, it indicates what is a plausible but erroneous 
conclusion from premises in themselves correct. 
What is the bearing of these explanations upon 
Paul’s refutation of Peter? On the former inter- 
pretation he seems to be charging upon Peter the 
assertion or admission of this false conclusion that 
Christ is a minister of sin, and assumes that Peter’s 


abandonment of his ordinary conduct, (“living as” 


do the Gentiles,” ver. 14), is equivalent to the con- 
fession that he acted wrongly in forsaking the law 
and attaching himself to Christ. He thus 
brought himself down upon the plane of Gentile 
‘‘sinners.” This view seems to me far-fetched. 
The emphasis of Paul’s thought does not rest upon 


Peter’s Inconsistent Action, ete.: ii. 17. - 91 


the question whether it was sinful to abandon the 
law or not, but upon the question whether 
faith in Christ was attended with success or fail- 
ure. Peter had acted as if it were a failure, and 
thereby gave color to the idea that Christ left those 
in sin who applied to him for salvation. The whole 
force of the verse is aimed at Peter’s action which 
involved the idea that justification by faith in 
Christ was not perfectly successful and complete. 
Lightfoot’s exposition of the views which he rejects 
seems to me unsatisfactory, because he treats them 
as if all turned on the one point of the sinfulness of 
abandoning the law; whereas the thought is, 
whether Christ leaves men unjustified sinners, re- 
quiring still to observe the law to complete their sal- 
vation. It is this idea which Paul negatives, as well 
as the conclusion (Christ a minister of sin), 
which might be drawn from it. This view alone 
places the right emphasis and sets the verse in its 
true relation to Peter’s inconsistency. Paul’s 
thought is that Peter has acted insuch a way as to 
make plausible the idea that.Christ could not jus- 
tify; that he was a helper to sin rather than to 
righteousness. Cf. Meyer in loco. 

The following particulars should be further ob- 
served; While we sought (ζητοῦντες) is emphatic 
by position, and is in itself an emphatic expression 
for the idea of believing, in order to make the an- 
tithesis to the result supposed (were found sin- 


92 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


ners) the sharper: “ΠῚ after our effort to be saved 
by faith, it turns out that we are after all only sin- 
ners still.” In Christ, (ἐν Χριστῷ) while supstan- 
tially equivalent to ‘‘ through Christ ” (διὰ Χριστοῦ) is 
different in form, and should be noted as a mark of 
Paul’s conception of the believer’s vital personal 
relation to Christ in justification which is less in 
the foreground in his formal discussion of the doc- 
trine of justification, but which predominates in his 
language touching the Christian life. It shows the 
reality of the spiritual groundwork and counterpart 
of Paul’s juristic theology. Justification is, in the 
terms of Paul’s system, a sentence pronounced on 
condition of faith which ushers the believer into a 
new state and relation to God; but it is also that 
new character in Christ which springs from the ap- 
propriation of the person and spirit of Christ in love 
and trust. The sentence or verdict has new spirit- 
itual relationship, vital fellowship with Christ and 
newness of personal life, as its essential spiritual 
content. It means not merely new standing, but 


new heart. This latter is the reality, the life and ~ 


substance which fills the Jewish inherited mould of 
the Apostle’s thought. As exegesis must not slight 
the latter, so must theology and practical religious 
thought dwell much upon the former. Were 
found sinners (εὑρέθημεν duap.) forms the counter- 
part to while we sought. “If after all our seek- 
ing we were found to be,” etc. The verb refers to 


δ οὶ 


ρίογ)5 Inconsistent Action, etce.: 11. 18... 98 


the ascertaining of a result in experience (cf. Rom. 
vii. 10); “411 it has turned out that,” etc. The word 
expresses the idea that the supposed case would be 
something surprising, which already creates a pre- 
sumption against the supposition made. We 
ourselves (καὶ airoi), would, on Lightfoot’s inter- 
pretation, emphasize Peter and Paul as Jews. On 
the other interpretation the idea would be: If even 
we Apostles and Christian leaders are still left un- 
forgiven sinners. The student of the original text 
should note the force of dpa (unrepresented in our 
translations). It is an interrogative particle, ex- 
pressive of anxiety or hesitation and is here slightly 
ironical. ‘‘ Would it then follow? Some might 
easily suppose so.” 

Minister of Sin:—Sin is here used in almost a 
personified sense. Itis the contrast to righteous- 
ness in its objective, forensic meaning. If Christ 
does not work in the sphere of righteousness, then 
he works in its opposite sphere, promotes sin, by 
leaving his adherents under its power, and thus 
helps it on. To such a supposition or question, 
Paul replies by his characteristic, ‘Let it not be ” 
(μὴ γένοιτο) found here, as always, after an interroga- 
tion. | 

18. For if I build up again those things 
which I destroyed, I prove myself a 
transgressor.—The meaning may be thus repre- 
sented: Why do I say that justification in Christ is 


94 The Hpistle to the Galatians. 


no failure, and that Christ is no minister of sin? 
I say so because the real transgressor of the law 
is he who goes back from its fulfillment to its 
letter, who turns away from what the law pointed 
to, 7. 6. Christ, who is its end. He is the man 
who really breaks the law, because he fails to 
appreciate its deepest providential purpose. He 
is like one who gathers up the fragments and 
husks from which the fully ripe fruit had been 
taken out, and tries to combine them and keep 
them, instead of seeking and prizing the fruit. 
This passage thus intimates how the law is dishon- 
ored by those who place it above, or on a par with, 
the gospel. The charge of ‘‘ transgression” falls 
not on Christ, but on the one who thus goes back to 
the law and deserts Christ who is its fulfillment. 
The case is made more vivid by the use of the first 
person (cf. Rom. vii.) I build up again (πάλιν 
οἰκοδομῶ) refers to the effort to set up the authority of 
the law as of perpetual obligation, as Peter was logi- 
cally doing by his ‘‘ dissimulation.” I destroyed 
(κατέλυσα), refers to the renunciation of the law asa 
ground of justification. Paul is fond of the figure 
of a building. ‘The verse describes the tendency of 
Peter’s conduct and charges him with the grave 
mistake of trying to re-instate in authority a sys- 
tem which was fulfilled and done away in Christ, 
and therefore with falseness to his Christian 
position. The remaining verses elaborate the 


Peter’s Inconsistent Action, etc.: li. 19. 95 


idea of the sole sufficiency of Christ for salva- 
tion. | 

19. For I through the law died unto the 
law, that I might live unto God.—Paul now 
adduces as proof of the statement in verse 18 his 
own actual experience. I through the law 
(ἐγὼ διὰ νόμου); Law here means the Mosaic law. 
“41 died to the law,” 7. 6. ethically; I became in 
relation to the law as a dead man; I broke all 
relation with it in becoming a Christian. Cf. Rom. 
vil. 4, where the dying to the law is illustrated by 
the dissolution of the marriage bond by the death 
of one of the parties. Cf. “the world hath been 
crucified to me and I unto the world,” (vi. 14). But 
how did I die to the law (dat. commodt) by means 
of the law? The steps of thought implied in this 
condensed formula are found in Rom. vii. 7 seg., 
(a) The law quickens sin, ‘‘ By the law is the 
” ‘The law awakens the conscious- 
ness of sin and shows man his guilt. It shuts him 
up under sin that he may be delivered by Christ. 
(6) The law thus has a part in the work of salva- 
tion, but it is negative and preparatory. It slays 
men ethically, that is, in respect to their self-right- 
eousness, in order that they may be ready to live by 
faith. (¢c) Thus the law leads men to Christ, which 
involves a breaking off of relations to itself. The 
law contributes to its own renunciation by leading 
to Christ for salvation. The connection of thought 


knowledge of sin. 


90 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


here is: The reason why I say that he most truly 
observes and honors the law who does not seek to be 
justified by it or regard it as essential, is that the 
law itself, in God’s providence, serves the purpose of 
leading men to Christ for salvation instead of to 
itself. The purpose of this dying to sin, to the 
world, to the law, (all equivalent ideas though dif- 
fering in form) is to live a higher life, unto 
God. Cf. Rom. vii. 4. 

20. I have been crucified with Christ; 
yet I live; and yet no longer I, but Christ 
liveth in me: and that life which I now 
live in the flesh I live in faith, the faith 
which is in the Son of God, who loved 
me, and gave himself up for me.—Here we 
observe the bold figure of dying and living again 
carried out more specifically under the terms of cru- 
cifixion. The motive of this mode of representa- 
tion is to be found in the fact of Christ’s sacrificial 
death for us. That, as the ground of our new life, 
is easily spoken of, in a figurative manner, as that in 
which our ethical death to sin and life to God are 
included. The figure is based upon an identifica- 
tion of things which are causally and vitally related. 
The thought is: ‘‘I died when Christ died.” ‘If 
one died for all, then all died,” II Cor. v. 14; and 
Rom. vi. 8. (Note the Aorist here, expressing a defi- 
nite past fact). These forms of thought illustrate 
Paul’s mystical realism. All natural humanity 


Peter’s Inconsistent Achion; etc. : ii..20. °° 9% 


sinned when Adam sinned (Rom. v. 12 seg.). All 
spiritual humanity died (to sin) when Christ died, was 
crucified with him, was raised (ethically) when he was 
raised. (Rom. vi. dy 6). This is an intensely realis- 
tic way of expressing the consequences of fellowship 
with Christ. When the perfect is used in these ex- 
pressions (¢. 9. 1 have been crucified, ¢/. vi. 14) 
it denotes the abiding fact of fellowship. But the 
force of the Aorist should be noted in Rom, iii. 23; 
v. 12; vi. 8; and Col. iii. 3, signifying a definite 
action conceived as occurring at a definite past 
time; 6. g. ““ Allsinned when Adam sinned”; * All 
died when Christ died.” These two forms of repre- 
sentation are the same, and should be understood in 
the same mystical manner. Paul carries out the 
figure of dying with Christ by representing the 
Christian in his transition to his new life as being 
buried with him, and as rising with him from 
the grave, and in some passages complicates this 
representation by joining with it the figures of 
baptism: Rom. vi. 4; Col. 11. 12. 

Yet I live (4 δέ) has this force: I spoke of dying 
to sin and living to God, but (sé) this living 
is not the old natural life which indeed I once lived 
(Rom. vii. 9 “1 was alive apart from the law — 
once”’), but a new life in Christ. By the emphatic 
I (ἐγώ), he means the self which previous to his con- 
version struggled vainly with sin (Rom. vii. 15 seq.) 
the ‘‘old (unregenerate) man” (Rom. vi. 6). The 

7 


98 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


living is no longer that of my natural unrenewed 
self; that has died, and a new life in fellowship 
with Christ, nay, a living of Christ in me, has 
begun. ‘‘ Christ liveth in me,” that is, through 


the union of faith and love. The fellowship of life 


is such that Christ may be said to dwell and live in 
me. ‘The reception of the mind and spirit of Christ 
is referred to (cf. Phil. i. 21: ‘* For to me to live is 
Christ”). Both the expression, I live and Christ 


liveth have emphatic positions. ~The subse-— 


quent statement; and that life which I now 
live seg., explains the meaning of Christ living in 
him. The word rendered ‘‘and ” (δέ) is mildly ad- 
versative, thus: I do not mean to say by my strong 
language that I have wholly ceased from the natural 
life, but, so far as I am still in it, I have a higher 
stimulus and principle animating me, namely faith. 
It thus marks the limitation upon the strong 
statements going before. 

In the Greek text the neuter pronoun (6) is 
cognate accusative, as in Rom. vi. 10 (ὃ yap ἀπέ- 
Gavev); not ‘‘in that he died” (A. V.) but ‘“‘ the 
death which he died” (R. V.). Now (iv) marks 
the contrast between the life which he is at present 
living in Christ, and the natural life which he for- 
merly lived. The flesh (σάρξ) is here used in its 
primary meaning where it is equivalent to this 


weak, material form of existence, and not in the — 


ethical signification so commen with Paul where it 


Peter’s Inconsistent Action, etc.: ii. 90. 99 


denotes the natural unrenewed human nature. 
**Though I am still living the life of sense in this 
temporary sphere of perishable, material elements, 
my chief life element is not connected with this 
sphere, but with a higher. I am ina real sense ‘in 
the flesh’ but, in a deeper sense, am living ‘in 
faith,’ because it-is in the faith-fellowship with 
Christ that my life-interests are found.” 

This faith he now traces to its basis. It isin the 
Son of God (genitive of the object) who loved 
me, etc. The object of his faith is the divine Son 
who from love gave himself up to suffering on his 
behalf (ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ). This love is the motive of the 
giving and the warrant of faith. Faith is the human 
counterpart of the self-revealing, self-imparting 
love of God; the attitude of receptiveness, grati- 
tude and trust toward that love which has evidenced 
itself in history most signally in the sacrifice of 
Christ. In Christ faith has the pledge of the 
divine love of which it may lay hold. The sacri- 
ficial work of Christ springs out of the self-impart- 
ing love of God and is the revelation of that 
love in its totality, both on the side of its vicari- 
ousness and sympathy, and on the side of its 
self-preservative quality, that is, its righteousness 
which is the self-respect of perfect love. The 
gift was of Himself. Self-giving is the deepest 
and truest giving. For me, 7. e. on my behalf 
(ὑπέρ, as always with Paul when speaking of the 


100 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


vicarious work of Christ for men, except, possibly, 
I Thess. v. 10, where many texts and MSS. read 
περί; ἀντί is never so used). Paul, in the vividness 
and intensity of his interest in Christ’s love and 
self-giving, speaks of it as done for him personally. 

21.1I do not make void the grace of 
God: for if righteousness is through the 
law, then Christ died for naught.—One 
final stroke at Peter’s conduct. ‘‘Ido not nullify 
the grace of God which has been revealed in Christ 
by going back to the legal system (as the conduct of 
the Judaizers practically does). Grace (χάρις) is 
the term which expresses the character of the 
Christian system as opposed to the legal system of 
commandment and of a corresponding obedience 
establishing merit. To go back to these is to desert 
and to set at naught the distinctive principles of 
grace and faith as applicable to salvation.” For if 
(ci γάρ) explains and justifies this bold statement. 
“41 speak of such Judaizing conduct as a setting at 
naught of God’s grace as revealed in Christ, for it 
treats it as if it were not necessary. If men can be 
justified by the law, there is no need of the way of 
grace through Christ, and Christ died in vain.” 

But it is an axiom with all Christians that Christ 
did not die in vain. This was so even with the 
Judaizing Christians. If then he did not die in 
vain, he must have died because it was necessary, 
i. 6. to open a way which the law did not and could 


Peter’s Inconsistent Action, etc.: 11. 1. 101 


not open. Thus Paul proves his point against 
Peter and the Judeo-Christians generally. Their 
conduct logically involves the putting of a light es- 
timate upon Christianity, and regarding the death 
of Christ as needless. The argument is a reductio 
ad absurdum from the Christian point of view. 

It has been concluded from this and similar 
passages that the genesis of Paul’s doctrine of the 
insufficiency and temporary character of the law is 
here shown. It is an inference from the axiom that 
Christ’s death must have been necessary (so Pflei- 
derer). But the Apostle is not tracing the logical 
genesis of his own thought here, but conducting an 
argumentum ad hominem against Peter from an as- 
sumption which Peter, equally with himself, would 
be compelled to grant. How Paul reached that 
axiom is in no way indicated. He is simply show- 
ing that Peter’s Judaizing is inconsistent with the 
Christian view of Christ’s death, not that his own 
view of the law sprang from that view of Christ’s 
death. 

The contrast of the law and the gospel is sharper 
in Galatians than in Romans because of the Judaiz- 
ing tendencies and the suspicion concerning his 
apostleship in the Galatian churches. The two are 
pictured as mutually exclusive, not in their inherent 
nature, but with reference to becoming methods of 
salvation. In the divine intention of the two sys- 
tems there could be no disharmony according to 


102 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


Paul’s premises, since the law-system was quite sub- 
ordinate and preparatory to the gospel and could by 
no means come into rivalry with it. The mutual 
exclusiveness arises only in the false application and 
wrong adjustment of the two which those make 
who seek to hold both systems at once, and to com- 
bine the characteristic principles of both, works 
and faith, and make them equally essential condi- 
tions of salvation. 


a ὁπ 


ANALYSIS AND PARAPHRASE OF 
CHAPTER III. 


1. The antagonism between the teaching of the 
Judaizers and the gospel of Christ, vv. 1-14. You 
Galatians have been drawn away as if by magic 
from the truth so plainly taught you that you were 
saved through Christ’s death (1). Reflect whether 
when you were converted, you received the gift of 
the Spirit by the doing of meritorious works, or by 
obeying the call to simply believe on Christ. Of 
course, the latter was the case. Will you, then, 
after having begun the life of the Spirit, fall back 
- upon that lower plane where the flesh is the ruling 
element of life,—a power from which the law is 
unable to deliver you (2, 3)? What folly to endure 
persecution for the gospel, when you do not really 
remain true to it (4)! Have not all your spiritual 
gifts come to you in the line of faith, and not of 
works? Be true, then, to this principle and re- 
nounce the rival and futile principle of legal works 
of merit (5). From the typical case of Abraham 
you may learn the truth which I am urging. He 
was not justified by works, but by faith; now all 

103 


104 Analysis and Paraphrase of Chapter 11]. 


believers are his spiritual sons and are saved in the 
same manner (6,7). The Old Testament recog- 
nizes the universal validity of the principle of faith 
(8, 9). On the contrary, those who stand upon the 
plane of law and seek to be saved by obedience to it 
will fail, for an absolutely perfect performance of 
all that the law requires is necessary in order to 
justification by law, and that man can never render 
(10). The law-principle says: Do all that the law 
requires and thou shalt live; the faith-principle 
says: Trust in God and thou shalt live. These 
indicate two different methods of salvation and the 
Scripture sanctions the latter as the only practica- 
ble one (11, 12). So far from having hope of being 
saved by the law, man had fallen under its curse 
and was helpless, but Christ, by taking the curse 
upon himself, freed us from it, that we might be 
justified and saved simply by trusting in him and 
his work for us (13, 14). 

2. The principle of the gospel antedates and under- 
lies the law, 15-22. Even a covenant between men, 
when once ratified, no third party may annul or 
supplement with new provisions; much less may 
God’s gracious covenant of promise with Abraham 
be affected in its conditions and provisions by any 
subsequent dispensations (15). Now the promise 
to Abraham’s seed is fulfilled only in Christ, and 
thus an identity and continuity of principle exists 
between that ancient covenant and the Christian 


Analysis and Paraphrase of Chapter III. 105 


gospel (16). Now the law which was given so long 
subsequent to this ‘‘ proto-gospel,” cannot affect its 
validity or change its provisions (17), and since salva- 
tion cannot be both by works and by faith, we must 
adhere to the more original and fundamental prin- 
ciple (18). What purpose, then, did the law serve 
if not that of justifying men? It showed them 
their need of justification and the impossibility of 
themselves attaining it, because it made them con- 
scious of the depth and heinousness of their sins; 
thus this divinely ordained system was designed to 
lead men to Christ for salvation, rather than to be 
itself a means of saving them (19). It was a dis- 
pensation given to men through the agency of 
Moses; it was mediate and conditional, therefore. 
But in giving the promise and so in promulgating 
the gospel of faith, God stands forth alone and acts 
in independence and sovereignty. Hence the prom- 
ise stands on a higher plane than the law (20). 
But it does not follow from this difference that the 
two dispensations, and their characteristic princi- 
ples, are in all respects contrary. The legal sys- 
tem is subordinate to the gospel, but it serves the 
ends of the gospel; it must be subordinate, for 
otherwise the gospel would not have been needed 
as a saving agency (21). But it serves the ends of 
the gospel by teaching men their sinfulness, putting 
them in the prison-houses of remorse and despair 
until they shall long for the gracious deliverance 


106 Analysis and Paraphrase of Chapter LLL. 


which Christ freely offers to those who trust in 
him (22). 

3. The disciplinary and preparatory office of the 
law, 23-29. It was the office of the law to imprison 
us by its condemnation until we should be set free 
by believing on Christ (23). The law may be 
called our tutor who, by his stern discipline and 
chastisement, prepared us for Christ and made us 
glad to find freedom and peace in him by faith (24). 
But now, as believers, we are no longer subject to 
this severe master, but possess the sense of liberty 
and sonship through Christ (25, 26). For truly 
all believers have entered into a unique relation to 
Christ which affects their whole attitude and stand- 
ing. The distinctions of nationality, condition and 
sex are as nothing in the presence of that deeper 
unity which binds together all believers in Christ, 
so that all who believe, regardless of these distinc- 
tions, are really Abraham’s seed (since Abraham’s 
great significance was not in the fact that he was a 
Jew, but in the fact that he was a man of faith) and 
therefore inherit the blessings promised to him and 
to his seed in the covenant which God made with 
him (27-29). 


a) ne? © 4 . 
eat a 


CHAPTER III. 


I. THe ANTAGONISM BETWEEN THE TEACHING OF 
THE JUDAIZERS AND THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST, 
vv. 1-14. 


THE doctrinal statements of ii. 19-21 form a 
connecting link between the apologetic section and 
the distinctly doctrinal section (iii. 1-v. 12) of the 
Epistle. The Apostle does not develop his doctrine 
abstractly but in connection with the lapse οὗ 
the Galatians into Judaism. Having proved the 
independence and divine authority of his aposto- 
late, and shown that his doctrine alone is consistent 
with the sole sufficiency of Christ, he reproaches 
the Galatians with having fallen away from his 
teaching. 

1. O foolish Galatians, who did bewitch 
you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was 
openly set forth crucified ?—He calls them 
foolish (ἀνόητοι), without mind or reason (νοῦς), 
irrational, undiscerning, easily duped by an unspirit- 
ual conception of life and salvation, readily yield- 
ing to the inconsistency and absurdity of the Jewish- 

107 | 


108 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


Christian position. He expresses his surprise and 
displeasure, both by the rhetorical question, who 
did bewitch you? and by the word bewitch 
(ἐβάσκανεν), which occurs only here and is apparently 
connected with φάσκειν ‘‘ to talk,” hence, “‘ to use in- 
_cantations,” and so,in general, “to bewitch.” It 
here denotes the subtle and radical character of the 


22 


perversion and the dishonor connected with being 
thus misled. He regards this radical perversion as 
the more astonishing because he had set Christ 
clearly before them as the crucified one. He had 
preached the doctrine of the cross and its significance 
as involving the abrogation of the law and exclusive 
dependence upon Christ for salvation, so that he 
can say that he placed his cross before their very 
eyes, and yet they have surrendered and deserted 
him, The force of the preposition in composition 
(πρό) which is rendered openly (set forth, etc.) 
ἡ might either be temporal, ‘was formerly written 
(προεγράφη) in their hearts,” 7 6. the meaning of 
Christ’s death was impressed upon them when he 
preached to them (so Meyer). The prevailing 
use of this verb (προγράφειν) in the New Testament 
favors this meaning (Rom. xv. 4; Eph. iii. 3). 
2 Or, it may be sammie its: in a local sense, ‘‘ was 
written before you,” the figure “deing drawn 
from the posting of public notices, a frequent 
meaning of the word (so Lightfoot, Ellicott). The 
phrase before whose eyes (κατ᾽ ὀφθαλμούς) lends 


The Judaizers and the Gospel, iii. 1. 109 


some support to this more external figure, and the 
wordssamong you (ἕν ὑμῖν cf. A. V. and T. R.) 
which Meyer urges against it, are wanting in 
many important manuscripts (eg. A Β C WN ¢. 
W. and H., Tisch. and R. V.) and, even if read, 
might mean ‘‘ among you” (so our older version) 
as well as ‘‘ within you” as in the expression: 
“The kingdom of God is within (or among) you” 
(ἐν ὑμῖν) Luke xvii. 21. The local force of the prep- 
osition in this particular case, gives a more vivid 
character to the passage, and more appropriately 
emphasizes the plainness with which Christ was set 
before them in the character of the crucified one, 
than would be done by the mention of the mere 
time relations, which would not be very essential 
here. This force of the words adds emphasis to 
the contrast between what they ought to have been 
and what they are. Both our English versions em- 
body this interpretation. Before whose eyes: 

The phrase is emphatic, indicating the clearness of — 
Paul’s preaching on the point, which should have 
prevented such a result. Crucified (ἐσταυρωμένος) 
is an emphatic predicate defining more exactly and 
fully the phrase: Jesus Christ was openly 
_ set forth. It emphasizes that which was distinct- 
ive in Paul’s preaching, and which stands in sharp- 
est contrast to their present Judaizing. If the 
phrase ‘‘among. you” is read, it is better to con- 
nect it with the verb was set forth than with the 


110 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


participle crucified (as commonly and in A. V.). 
He was set forth among them in the character of 
the crucified one. 

2. This only would I learn from you, 
Received ye the Spirit by the works of 
the law, or by the hearing of faith ?—Paul 
wishes now to point out their inconsistency, and 
this he will do by asking them one decisive ques- 
tion. This only (τοῦτο μόνον), 2. 6.., this question 
only as bearing upon the subject in hand, I would 
ask, and the answer will reveal your error. ‘‘ Was 
it in the line of the law that you received the 
Spirit, or in the line of faith? On which of these 
contrasted principles did you begin the Christian 
life?” Of course the former was the case. Then 


“why not remain faithful to the principle with which 


you started? Learn (μαθεῖν) is to acquire informa- 
tion, (= cognoscere); here it is half sarcastic, be- 
cause Paul knew the necessary answer. I wish to 
confront you plainly, he says, with this alternative. 
By (lit. “from” é#) the works, etc., or by (i#)« 
the hearing, etc.: The preposition denotes in 
each case, that by which the reception of the 
Spirit is mediated. Paul supposes two conceivable 
conditions on man’s part of receiving the Spirit: (a) 
by doing works of law, so that these works of 
obedience may be contemplated as in a secondary 
sense the source (ἐξ) of the benefit derived; (0) by 
accepting the message of faith, in which case the 


The Judaizers and the Gospel, 111. 3. 111 


Spirit is received from, or as the result of faith. 
From which of these sources, in the line of which 
of these methods, did you receive the Holy Spirit? 
Here again it should be noted that receiving the 
Spirit is to Paul synonymous with justification. ? It 
will thus be observed that the juristic forms of 
thought are by no means exclusively employed. 
(Cf. again 11. 17, δικαιωθῆναι ἐν Xpior@). When discuss- 
ing the contrast between faith and works Paul com- 
monly employs the forensic language (see, especially, 
Rom. iv. passim), but here he does not. The 
works of the law (ἔργα νόμου), are works which 
the commandments of the law require, and which, 
_ in this connection, are conceived of as an alleged 

ground of meriting salvation. The hearing 
(axon) might be either (a), active “" hearing ” (Light- 
foot, R. V.); or (6) passive, ‘‘ report,” ‘‘ message” 
(Meyer, Ellicott, R. V. marg). It is indecisive to 
say (with Lightfoot) that (a) makes a better con- 
trast with works of law, ὦ. 6., the contrast be- 
tween doing works and hearing faith, since the 
contrast is rather between the principles or methods, 
than between two specific actions like doing and 
hearing. Hearing is no more efficacious than 
doing. The contrast lies rather in the opposition 
between Jaw and faith. New Testament usage 
favors (0) as does the natural force of ‘‘ faith ” (πίστις). 
On view (a) faith is conceived objectively as a thing 
heard,—not acharacteristic Pauline conception. On 


©) 
i 
/ 


112 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


view (6) the meaning is: ‘‘through the message 
which proclaimed faith as the essential condition of 
salvation.” Faith is not with Paul primarily a 
doctrine, but an action, a thing to be done, a trust 
to be exercised. It was in the acceptance of the 
message which said: ‘‘ Believe on Christ,” that they 
received the Holy Spirit. 

3. Are ye so foolish? ὝΕΣ ἐδ begun in 
the Spirit, are ye now perfected in the 
flesh ?—The emphatic word, 50 (oirwc) refers to the 
seriousness of the mistake of forsaking the gospel 
for the law. Then follows the statement of the 
inconsistency. The beginning spoken of (ἐναρξάμενοι 
πνεύματι) Was the course of their Christian life up to 
the commencement of their Judaizing tendencies; 
the finishing (σαρκὶ ἐπιτελεῖσθε), is the course of their 
life since then as influenced by the false teachers. 
The contrast of beginning in the Spirit to be- 
ing perfected in the flesh is parallel to that of 
‘the hearing of faith ” and ‘‘ the works of the law” 
(verse 2). The terms rendered Spirit and flesh 
are in the dative case which here is instrumental ? 
and designates the character, principles, or quali- 
ties of the New and Old Testament systems respect- 
ively. Flesh (σάρξ) means the natural sinful char- 
acter of men which the law cannot overcome. On 
the contrary the law but rouses this slumbering sin, 
and shows men how completely under the bondage 
of the flesh they are. (Cf. Rom. vii. 5, 6, where 


The Judaizers and the Gospel, iii. 3. 113 


to be ‘‘in the flesh” (5), and under bondage to the 
law (6), are practically synonymous). ‘‘ Will you, 
then,” says the Apostle, ‘“‘abandon the aid of the 
Spirit which you received by the message of faith, 
and try to work out your salvation on the plane of 
the law, giving yourselves up again to the govern- 
ment of the flesh?” If this view (substantially that 
of Meyer, Ellicott, Thayer’s Lexicon and Julius 
Miller), be correct, then “the flesh” denotes the 
principle that obtains in the sphere of law, that 
dominates the natural man and defies the power of 
the law to break it. ‘‘ Will you now try by means 
of the flesh to complete your Christian life, though 
all experience proves that the sinful flesh under the 
operation of law is the very power that crushes man 
and makes him powerless?” The difficulty with 
this interpretation is that “‘the flesh” is primarily 
connected with man as characterizing his unchris- 
tian life and action, and not with the Jaw which we 
should here expect. Hence the majority of inter- 
preters suppose that ‘‘ the flesh” here stands as a 
designation of the law in its outward, ceremonial 
character (so Lightfoot, Riickert); most of whom 
find a reference either to circumcision or sacrifice. 
This view yields a meaning which, at first sight, 
seems more appropriate, but has decisive objections: 
(a) He would never characterize the law as such, Ὁ 
the word ‘‘flesh” (σάρξ) it is rather ‘ spiritual,” 
‘* pneumatic 7 (πνευματικός), Rom. vii. 12-14. (ὁ 4 
8 


114 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


The habit of singling out the ceremonial and exter- 
nal features of the law in order to emphasize its 
inadequacy is a modern, not a Pauline one. (c) The 
Pauline usage of the word “flesh ” (in contrast to 
** Spirit ”’) is decidedly favorable to making it charac- 
terize man’s state under the law, rather than the 
character of the law per se. If in Rom. iv. 1, the 
phrase ‘‘according to the flesh ” (kara σάρκα) is to be 
joined with the verb ‘‘hath found ” (εὑρηκέναι), (as 
Meyer, Godet, rendering of the American commit- 
tee in the R. V.), we then have in that passage a 
very similar thought and contrast between what 
Abraham found apart from and in faith.* The 
present tense in the phrase, are ye now per- 
fected, enhances the irony; ‘‘Are you just now 
receiving the completion of your Christian life?” 
4. Did ye suffer so many things in vain ὃ 
if it be indeed in vain :—So many things 
in vain may be taken as an exclamation (so 
Meyer); or, as generally, may be understood inter- 
rogatively. Did ye suffer ἢ (ἐπάθετε) is variously 
understood: in good (= to experience benefits), new- 


tral (= to experience), or bad sense (= to painfully 


endure). The tatter meaning is generally main- 


wk _tained and is required by the uniform use of the 


word in the New Testament and the Septuagint, as 
well as favored by the context (so Meyer, Lightfoot, 


* Some critical texts, as that of Westcott and Hort, omit 
εὑρηκέναι altogether (cf. margin of R. V.). 


The Judaizers and the Gospel, iii. 4. 115 


Ellicott). What particular sufferings are meant? 
Interpreters reply: (a) Persecutions, such as over- 
took other Christians (II Cor. i. 8); though the 
New ‘Testament says nothing of it among the 
Galatian churches (the commonest view). (Ὁ) It 
refers to the molestation of the Galatian churches 
by the Judaizers, and the imposing of unnecessary 
burdens upon them by these errorists (so Meyer). 
The sense requires that something be referred to 
which they had endured before, because of their 
devotion to Christianity. Was that suffering in 
vain? It was all for naught and might better not 
have been borne, if they were wrong in their exclu- 
sive adherence to Christ. The condition, if it be 
indeed in vain intimates Paul’s opinion. They 
did right to suffer for their faith, because their 
faith was worth suffering for. But if they continue 
in this state of lapse, they would be confessing their 
former sufferings as vain and useless. Only the 
suffering of something which they endured at an 
earlier period because of their Christian faith, and 
rather than give it up, can satisfy the language. 
The meddling of the Judaizers was not of this char- 
acter. The usual interpretation seems to me the 
preferable one. | 

5. He therefore that supplieth to you 
the Spirit, and worketh miracles among 
you, doeth he it by the works of the law, 
or by the hearing of faith ?— He now resumes 


116 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


the contrast of law and faith which was drawn in 
verse 2, verses 3 and 4 being logically parenthetic. 
He that supplieth to you the Spirit, (that is, 
God). Miracles, (lit. powers dwéyec), might 
either mean miraculous works or miraculous powers. 
In the former case “ among you ” would be the proper 
rendering of the phrase ἐν ὑμῖν (so Winer); in the lat- 
ter ‘“‘in you” is the better translation (so Meyer, 
Ellicott, Wieseler). The verb worketh (ἐνεργῶν) in 
both its inherent meaning and regular New Testa- 
ment use seems to favor the latter interpretation. 
In this case, the meaning would be: ‘‘ He that be- 
stoweth upon you the Spirit and worketh mighty 
powers within you.” The reference is to the mirac- 
ulous endowments so frequently spoken of in the 
New Testament, and which according to I Cor. xii. 
28, were among the ‘“‘gifts” which Christ en- 
trusted to the church at his ascension. ‘The sen- 
tence is elliptical and can be completed by supply- 
ing in indicative form the ideas of the participles 
doeth he it? etc. Of course, the answer to the 
question must be: He doeth it by the hearing 
of faith. . 

6. Even as Abraham believed God, and 
it was reckoned unto him for righteous- 
ness.—At this point, Paul brings forward the case 
of the believing Abraham to illustrate from the Old — 
Testament itself the principle on which he was jus- 
tified. It was not by works but by faith and you 


~ 


The Judaizers and the Gospel, ili. 6. 117 


are justified, he would say, in accordance with (καθώς) 
the typical case of Abraham, by faith also. The 
passage is from the Septuagint of Gen. xv. 6, with 
the variation from the Hebrew of the passive 
(ἐλογίσθη) for the active: ‘‘ He reckoned it to him” 
(ΠΩ). The logical subject of was reck- 
oned is “faith” (ἡ πίστι) or ““ believing” (τὸ 
πιστεύειν). ‘The preposition for (εἰς) is used with the 
predicative force so common in later Greek. The 
conception, well-nigh uniform with Paul, is that 
faith is that which is imputed, a formula which the- 
ology has sometimes repudiated lest to faith should 
be ascribed a meritorious character.* But this peril 
is better avoided by a right apprehension of the 
doctrine of faith than by a rejection of the Pauline 
formula. The very nature of faith excludes desert 
in the sense of a meritorious ground of salvation. 
Its very idea is receptiveness, trust and humble 
self-surrender, answering to the idea of ‘‘ grace” 
(χάρις) on God’s part, which is the idea of doing bet- 
ter for men than they deserve. Hence vires 


reckoned for righteousness | by res reason. of its its ἜΡΜΟ 
merit, as if it founded a claim upon God, but that, 
being an obedient and receptive attitude toward 


God and his salvation, it is the condition precedent 


* E. g. in this statement: ‘‘ He freely justifieth, * * * not 
by imputing faith itself,’ etc., Westminster Confession. xi. 1. 


118 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


to our entering a right relation to God; so that, 
on the one hand, faith is distinguished from 
righteousness, contemplated as an achievement by 
man, a reward of merit; while, on the other hand, 
it may be reckoned as righteousness in the sense of 
a gracious gift because it is the act and spirit on 
man’s part which receive the proffered righteous- 
ness in a consciousness of personal unworthiness. 
While therefore faith may be sharply distinguished 
from legal righteousness contemplated as a guid pro ἡ 
quo, it may be closely identified with righteousness 
considered as a gracious gift. 

7. Know therefore that they which be 
of faith, the same are sons of Abraham. 
—The Apostle now develops his conclusion drawn 
from the principle contained in the Scripture cited. 
Since the significance of Abraham’s religious life is 
found in faith, it follows that he is the typical 
father of the faithful; that sonship to him, in the 
spiritual sense, is determined by faith. The terms, 
they which be of faith (οἱ ἐκ πίστεως) 18 commonly 
understood as ἃ contrast to lineal descendants, but 
its more exact counterpart would be (so Wieseler, 
Meyer), legalists, ‘‘those who are of works of the 
law,” (οἱ ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, verse 10). The preposition 
“of” (ἐκ) has the same meaning as in verses 2-5; 
“‘those who proceed forth in their religious life 
from that principle.” 

8. And the scripture, foreseeing that 


The Judaizers and the Gospel, iii. 8. 119 


God would justify the Gentiles by faith, 
preached the gospel beforehand unto 
Abraham, saying, In thee shall all the na- 
tions be blessed.—This verse forms the transi- 
tion to the proof that since believers only are sons 
of Abraham, they alone can share the blessing of 
justification promised to the nations in him. 
Foreseeing Eadoos implies a kind of personifi- 
cation of Scripture, based upon the idea of God as 
foreseeing what is promised in Scripture. The 
word rendered would justify (δικαιοῖ) is rendered 
by many “‘ justifieth ” (Meyer, Ellicott, R. V. marg.) 
and in that case denotes the present fact which 
Scripture foresaw as future. Preached the gos- 
pel beforehand (προευηγγελίσατο), declared the glad 
tidings in advance, viz., in the quotation which fol- 
lows. The passage is taken from the Septuagint 
with the modification that the terms of the orig- 
inal, ‘‘all the tribes of the earth,” are replaced by 
all the nations, (see Gen. xii. 3). They shall be 
blessed in him in the sense that their blessing 
(justification by faith), is typically included in his 
own. In here denotes to Paul the relation of 
spiritual sonship which is based on faith. Others 
understand the blessing more comprehensively (as 
Wieseler, De Wette) as referring to participation in 
the kingdom of God in general. The Gentiles 
(lit. the nations, τὰ ἐθνη) is here the contrast to the 
Jews, The same words in the original are found in 


120 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


the quotation where they have the same meaning. 
Perhaps the term, the nations (7. 6. Gentiles, 
τὰ ἔθνη) Was chosen in preference to ‘‘the tribes” 
(ai φυλαῖ) of the original,—which would certainly in- 
clude Jews,—in order the more clearly to apply the 
passage to the heathen world. On this supposition, 
Paul uses the passage in a somewhat more specific 
sense than that which the original bears, in.so far 
as he limits it by changing ‘“‘ tribes of the earth,” 
including Jews, to ‘“‘the nations,” meaning Gen- 
tiles, thus suggesting a contrast of Gentiles to 
Jews. It is, however, at most, a specific limitation 
or application; not a change of the original force of 
the passage. 

9. So then they which be of faith are 
blessed with the faithful Abraham.—This 
verse draws the conclusion from the confessed fact 
that the Galatian Christians received the Holy 
Spirit ‘‘by the hearing of faith,” (vv. 2, 5); and 
asserts the harmony of this fact with the principle 
illustrated in the typical case of Abraham, and with 
the promise given to him. With gives the same 
fundamental conception as ‘‘in” (8) but with a 
different phase of thought. Together they would 
signify that 7m and with his blessing, they were 
blessed.. The former implies the spiritual kinship 
which the latter more explicitly expresses. 

10. For as many as are of the works of 
the law are under a curse: for it is writ- 


The Judaizers and the Gospel, 111. 10. 121 


ten, Cursed is every one which contin- 
ueth not in all things that are written in 
the book of the law, to do them.—The state- 
ments here made are the proof that the blessing of 
justification comes only by faith and are based upon 
the affirmation of Scripture that only a curse (and not 
a blessing) comes to those who adhere to the plane 
of mere law. In the phrase, 85 Many as are of 
tk, works of the law, we have for the first time the 
πὰ κῃ counterpart of, “‘they which be of faith” 
(9). The citation here found is quoted freely, but 
without variation of sense, from the Septuagint 
(Deut. xxvii. 26), which, in turn, renders freely but 
not inexactly, the Old Testament ‘‘Cursed is he 
who does not maintain (0%)2’) the words of this 
law to do them.” The contrast here intended is 
clearly stated in Rom. iv. 4, 5. The principle is 
stated positively in Rom. ii. 13; ‘‘The doers of a 
law shall be justified,” and again in Rom. x. 5. 
The reason why in fact this doing of the law is 
never successful, 7. e. never conducts to salvation, 


is found primarily in man’s sinfulness which has its 


seat in the flesh (σάρξ) (cf. Rom. viii. 3). So far 
from justifying, it is found that the law can only 
produce the knowledge of sin and quicken the 
indwelling evil into new energy, but cannot deliver 
man from its power. (See especially Rom. iii. 20). 

The assumption of the whole argument is that 
no one can perfectly keep the law, hence all are 


/ 


122 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


under its penalty. He who should render a com- 
plete and constant obedience could establish a meri- 
torious claim to salvation; but there is no such 
person: ‘‘ Hvery one is cursed who does not do every- 
thing which the law requires.” Much of the em- 
phasis and force of Paul’s argumentative use of the 
passage depends upon the words every one and 
all things, which are, indeed, in the Septuagint 
(from which Paul’s quotations are directly taken), 
but not in the original. They may have been in 
the text from which the translation of the Seventy 
was made. The force of the argument does not 
depend upon these emphases for which our Hebrew 
text supplies no basis, but it is plain that its force 
is greatly enhanced by them. The argument. 
hinges also on the idea of doing; in legal relations 
doing is the test, but no one does the law, hence no 
one can be justified by it. Paul here gives to the 
passage from Deuteronomy (as in Rom. x. 5 to the 
passage from Ley. xviii. 5) a specific application 
which the passage in its original Old Testament set- 
ting did not bear, in using it so as to point a con- 


trast between the law-principle and the faith-prin- 


ciple; between a debit and credit method and a gra- 
cious method of divine action. Both the passages. 
just alluded to are general enforcements of the law- 
codes in which they occur. They were not meant 
to imply that everything which the people received 
from God should be in mathematical proportion to 


τὺ 
f 
oral ty τ 
wi i 
= Ao» alt! 


The Judaizers and the Gospel, iii. 11, 12. 128 


the degree of this obedience. Paul states with ab- 
stract exactness the legal principle, and treats it as 
a complete contrast to the gospel principle, but as a 
matter of fact the Old Testament did not present 
the principle to the Jews in this abstract character. 
There was to them a gospel in the law; the legal 
system was not merely abstractly legal, but gracious 
as well. Of course Paul does not say that it was so, 
but it cannot escape notice that he draws this con- 
trast with a sharpness which, while abstractly 
exact, was never concretely illustrated in the Old 
Testament, and was not present to the minds of the 
writers of the passages referred to. 

11, 12. Now that no man is justified by 
the law in the sight of God, is evident: 
for, The righteous shall live by faith, 
and the law is not of faith; but, He 
that doeth them shall live in them.— 
The argument of 11, 12 in syllogistic form would 
be: major premise, It is a Scripture axiom that the 
just man lives from faith: minor premise, But doing 
and merit are the test on the plane of law; therefore 
no one lives the just life by the law (ἐν νόμῳ). The 
underlying assumption of the argument is: No one 
perfectly keeps the law. The first quotation is from 
Hab. ii. 4 (VT? INJONA PWS). (LXX., ὁ δὲ δίκαιος 
ἐκ πίστεώς μου Choerat). The passage is quoted exactly 
from the Septuagint both here and in Rom. i. 1%, 
except that the word ‘‘my” (μου) is omitted. The 


124 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


original passage is a part of the prophet’s encourage- 
ment to the people in view of a Chaldean invasion. 
He declares that the destruction of the enemy is sure 
tocome. ‘‘ Be encouraged” he says, ‘‘ and trust in 
Jehovah; the righteous man, the true Israelite, shall 
live by his constancy, fidelity ” (TIVON). Apart 
from the particular circumstances surrounding the 
passage, it becomes an assurance that the righteous 
man shall, in the exercise of faithfulness, find life 
and blessing. It is possible to join the phrase by 
faith with shall live (as is commonly done) or 
with the righteous (so Meyer). For the expres- 
sion of the latter idea another order of words (ὁ ἐκ 
πίστεως δίκαιο) Would have been unambiguous, but 
may have been prevented by the well-known order 
of words inthe LXX. Whether it is the righleous- 
mess or the life which is said to be ‘‘ from faith ” 
makes no essential difference. The common 
connection is favored by the evident meaning of 
the original passage in the Old Testament. It 
is certain, however, that the word for faith 
here (rior) is more specific than the correspond- 
ing Hebrew term in the original passage. It is 
frequently rendered by the same Greek word (πίστις) 
in the LXX., and this usage is the connecting 
link betweén the more general Old Testament idea 
and Paul’s specific conception of faith. As Abra- 
ham’s faith was not exactly the same as the Christ- 
ian’s in content, yet was for Paul the same in 


The Judaizers and the Gospel, iii. 11,12. 125 


principle, viz.: trust in God’s grace, so the faithful- 
ness in hardship and danger spoken of in Habakkuk 
is treated as being the same in principle with the 
specific faith which is exercised towards Christ for 
salvation. So the matter is treated, but we should 
not suppose that Paul turned his attention con- 
sciously to the limitation of the meaning in the Old 
Testament, and -deliberately decided to use the pas- 
sage in a somewhat different sense. He seized the 
words for the principle which they contained, and 
without reference to the Old Testament setting. 
The law does not spring out of the principle of faith, 
but out of a different principle, that of enactment 
and obedience. Hence, of course, we have nothing 
to hope from the law, and the conclusion is: No 
man is justified by the law. The Apostle 
evidently intends to prove this by the Old Testa- 
ment quotations, so that the Jewish party will be 
powerless to reply. He has put two passages of 
Scripture together as premises, and drawn his con- 
clusion. So long as they accept these Scriptures 
they must accept his conclusion unless they should 
dispute his use of the passages. * 


* What flaw would a keen scribe be likely to have 
found here from his viewpoint? Perhaps in reference to 
the first quotation he would object that “‘ faith ”’ in the 
passage means constancy and fidelity to God and would 
maintain that the prophet’s view and his own were the 
same, viz.: that ἃ man shall live now as then by fidelity to 


120 The Epistle to the Galatians. , 


13. Christ redeemed us from the curse 
of the law, having become a curse for us: 
for it1s written, Cursed is every one that 
hangeth on a tree.—In verses 11 and 12 Paul 
had shown that under the law, not a blessing, but a 
curse, is experienced. Through Christ the curse is 
taken away. This process is represented by com- 
mercial analogies. The curse is conceived as a 
debt to be met. God as the lawgiver exacted 
obedience; it has not been rendered; there is an 
unpaid obligation which puts men in a relation to 


God. He might urge that “ faith ” in the Old Testament 
passage does not bear the sense of trust as opposed to 
legal obedience and hold that he supported the princi- 
ple precisely in its Old Testament sense. Perhaps in re- 
gard to the second quotation he would say that ‘ shall live’ 
does not refer to justification, and that the passage is not 
meant to establish an exact relation under the Old Testa- 
ment between doing and receiving from God; that it means 
rather that the man who is obedient in heart and purpose 
shall have life, room being left for gracious forgiveness for 
sins and failures. He might conclude:—‘‘ We hold both 
these principles too, but in the sense in which they stand 
in the Old Testament, and in that sense they have no bear- 
ing upon specific faith in Christ.”’ Paul might answer: 
‘“‘The passages bear on the two principles which are the con- 
spicuous marks of the two systems respectively. They 
show that from the Old Testament itself it was clear that 
salvation is not by debt but of grace; i. e. that, even under 
the Old Testament, justification by faith was the principle 
of salvation, as illustrated by the case of Abraham ’”’. 


The Judaizers and the Gospel, iii. 13. 197 


God which might be likened to that of captives, 
who, having been false to their rightful king, are 
held awaiting ransom. Christ pays that ransom 
and the obligation arising from the violated law is 
forever discharged. His death for men is the 
ransom price. He becomes_a curse; 7. 6. he vicari- 
ously takes the place of those whom he sets free, 
enduring the penal sufferings which must have been 
theirs under the curse of the law. Cf. II Cor. v. 
21, where Christ is said to become ‘‘sin for 
us.” 

Next the idea of the curse under which Christ, as 
the Redeemer, comes, is enforced by the Old Testa- 
ment statement (Deut. xxi. 23) of the ignominy 
attaching to such as have their bodies hung upon a 
stake or tree. So far did Christ become as one 
accursed that he stopped not short of this pitch of 
shame. Respecting the theological bearing of these . 
statements it may be observed, (a) that Paul is not 
presenting an abstract theory of the mode of 
redemption. The pronoun “us” (‘‘redeemed us ”) 
refers primarily to the Jews who alone were under 
the Mosaic law. It is neither of law in the abstract 
nor of man in the abstract, that Paul is speaking. 
He is not speculating as to how Christ’s vicarious 
sufferings satisfy the penal righteousness of God; 
although theological speculation, following out his 
language, must face this question. He is treating a 
concrete question: the way in which Christ helped 


128 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


the Jews out of that bondage of debt which their 
disobedience involved them in. 

(Ὁ) It is to be remembered that the (Mosaic) law 
with Paul is only one of the dispensations of God. 
There was also the gracious covenant of promise 
which antedates the law, (verses 17-19). This dis- 
pensation is the older and more fundamental; the 
law entered alongside (παρεισῆλθεν, Rom. v. 20) of it 
four hundred and boven years after to make trans- 
gressions abound, and thus led on to the ideal fulAll- 
ment of the covenant of promise whose principle is 
faith (cf. Rom. iv. 13-16). The law and this 
primeval gospel existed side by side, and the law 
must by no means be conceived of as annulling that 
gospel of promise (vy. 21). The Mosaic law repre- 
sents but one phase of the divine economy, and that 
a subordinate one; the gospel of grace and faith 
antedates it, and contains the higher ends which it 
is to serve. Thus there existed a gospel of God’s 
grace according to which he was forgiving men 
upon faith, before the law, alongside of the law, 
and after the law is done away. The whole pur- 
pose of the law is subordinate to God’s gracious 
redemption; it comes in to reveal the exceeding 
sinfulness of sin, for this is a necessary step in the 
redemption of man from it. It follows that 

| redemption is not conceived of as a makeshift to 
| satisfy the law, but as the product of divine ideas 
and modes of action that are more fundamental and 


ni Peto 
Ny gates 
were 2 


The Judaizers and the Gospel, ii. 138. 129 


original than the legal system. While Christ satis- 
fies the demands of the law for obedience, the 
larger Pauline truth is, that he satisfies the ends to 
which the legal system, first, midst and last, is 
subordinate. 

(c) It is important for theology to translate the 
figure_of ransoming into its moral and spiritual 
equivalents and to build on these, not on the form 
or metaphor merely. The Mosaic law may be said 
to represent the law and penalty side of the divine 
nature; there is such a side. The primeval gospel 
of grace and faith may be said to represent the 
gracious, benevolent element in the nature of God. _ 
Both of these are constituent in the divine nature. 
Both must be manifested, revealed, satisfied, by any 
divine method or process of salvation. Christ, in 
his vicarious identification of himself with man 
in his sinful condition, comes into the intense 
realization of the misery and hatefulness to 
God, of human sin. He suffers with and for man 
by virtue of his union with him in his sinful lot. 
In this sense he becomes 8, Curse or ‘‘sin,” for us. 
His sufferings are penal, not in the sense that they 
are personally deserved, nor that he comes under the 
personal displeasure of God; but in the sense that 
just so far as he is identified with man through the 
vicariousness of love, he is identified with him in 
suffering the consequences of sin. The severity of 
this suffering freely borne by the sinless Christ is 

‘ 


180 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


the vindication of God’s attitude towards sin. 
Christ must suffer as he does, because he has 
become the representative man, and those sufferings 
are the answer to the question: What is God’s feel- 
ing toward sin? 

In Christ’s sufferings there is therefore a revela- 
tion of the holy nature of God which vindicates that 
holiness beyond what punishment could do. Thus 
Christ meets the ends of punishment. This is the 
essential truth underlying the figure of the ransom. 
The act or process denoted by this term is vicarious, 
but the vicariousness is moral and spiritual; there is, 
indeed, no other vicariousness, which is of any value. 

14. That upon the Gentiles might come 
the blessing of Abraham in Christ Jesus; 
that we might receive the promise of the 
Spirit through faith.—This verse states the 
purpose or aim of the redemption of the Jews from 
the curse, as terminating on the Gentiles. How 
should the deliverance of the Jews from the curse 
which the law pronounced secure justification (the 
blessing of Abraham) to the Gentiles? Vari- 
ous replies are given: 

(1) Christ does away with the Jewish law, and 
breaks down the partition between Jew and 
Gentile (Rickert, Lightfoot), But Paul says 
nothing of doing away with the law here, but only 
of ransoming men from its curse. This view seems 
to be influenced by Eph. ii. 14, ff. 


The Gospel Antedates the Law, etc.: iii. 15. 131 


(2) Christ redeems the Jews from the curse, 
thereby putting Jew and Gentile on one common 
ground, in that he requires faith alike in both 
(Usteri). But this would not yet show how the 
redemption of the Jews accomplished the justifica- 
tion of the Gentiles. 

(3) The Jews were the divinely chosen media 
through whom salvation should be brought to the 
Gentiles. ‘‘Salvation is of the Jews.” Their re- 
demption logically precedes the salvation of the 
Gentiles, on the principle: “Τὸ the Jew first,” etc. 
(Meyer). This interpretation is the preferable one. 
This blessing is to come to the Gentiles in Christ 
Jesus, as opposed to ‘‘through the law.” The 
second final clause, that we might receive, 
etc., may be taken as co-ordinate with the first, 
that upon the Gentiles, etc., by way of climax 
(so Meyer, Ellicott); or as subordinate to the first 
as further defining it (Lightfoot). Either construc- 
tion makes good sense. 


THE PRINCIPLE OF THE GOSPEL ANTEDATES AND 
UNDERLIES THE LAw, 15-22. 


15. Brethren, I speak after the manner 
of men: Though it be but a man’s cov- 
enant, yet when it hath been confirmed, 
no one maketh it void, or addeth thereto. 
—Here begins the argument to show the priority 
and superiority of the covenant of promise with 


182 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


Abraham to which the law was subordinate. 
After the manner of men (κατὰ ἄνθρωπον), 
means, “ἴῃ accordance with what happens among 


2) 


men.” It introduces an argument a fortiori to show 
that, if a covenant, properly ratified, is certain in 
human relations, much more will a divine promise 
be secure. Covenant (διαθήκη) is the equivalent of 
the Old Testament term (1103), and signifies a 
solemn compact or agreement. It means ‘“testa- 
ment ” or “will,” only once in the New Testament 
(Heb. ix. 16, 17)—a meaning common in classic 
Greek,—but being translated testamentum by the 
Vulgate, the rendering ‘‘ testament” has passed 
into our common usage as its English equivalent. 
Of this inaccuracy the title ‘‘‘The New Testament” 
must now stand as a perpetual witness. The cor- 
rect title would have been ‘‘'The New Covenant.” 
In the text the R. V. has set the translation right. 
Addeth thereto (ἐπιδιατάσσεται), 1. 6. ““ἴο ordain 
besides,” ‘‘to add stipulations to.” The word 
translated yet (ὅμως) belongs logically with no one 
(οὐδείς), though “separated so far from it, in the 
original text, (cf. I Cor. xiv. 7); the participle 
(κεκυρωμένην) is temporal: ‘‘ when confirmed.” The 
object of the sentence, ἃ man’s covenant, is 
thrown into the emphatic position, and the par- 
ticular emphasis is like that given by a concessive 
clause: ‘‘ Even though it be the case of a human 
covenant, yet, when it is confirmed, no one,” etc., 


aa 


ὙΠ ᾿ 


The Gospel Antedates the Law, etc.: 111. 16. 133 


or, ‘“‘Man’s covenant though it be, yet,” etc. The 
confirmation spoken of is the solemn ratification of 
the agreement by the contracting parties. When 
this is done no one (ὦ. θ. no third party) sets it aside 
or adds to it. It must stand, so far as any outside 
interference is concerned. This he will now apply. 
The typical covenant-promise is to Abraham. It is 
confirmed by God; and no one (such as a Judaizer, 
or an adherent of the Mosaic law), must interfere 
with or replace its provisions. 

16. Now to Abraham were the prom- 
ises spoken, and to his seed. He saith 
not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of 
one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.— 
The truth which he now wishes to establish is the 
indestructible character of the Abrahamic covenant _ 
and its connection with Christ. The promises, 
—the plural denoting that they were oft repeated, 
and in different_forms,—were spoken to Abraham; 
but also to his seed. They were not merely spoken 

__personally to Abraham, but had a forward look 
which Paul associates with Christ. The quotation 
includes the connecting word and. The words are 
found in Gen. xiii. 15 and xvii. 8. And he saith 
not: And to seeds (καὶ τοῖς σπέρμασιν), as if referring 
to many, but: And to thy seed. (καὶ τῷ σπέρματί σου)» 
as if referring to one, who is Christ. 

The various methods of explaining this difficult 
passage may be summarized thus: (a) The object of 


134 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


Paul is to show that the promise referred to does not 
apply to Abraham’s descendants in a literal sense, 
but to one class of his descendants, his spiritual 
_ children (so Augustine, Tholuck, Olshausen; sim- 
ilarly, Ellicott, Lightfoot). Of this spiritual prog- 
eny of Abraham, Christ is the head; indeed it 
has no existence apart from Christ. It is he in 
a mystical sense. (Ὁ) The argument with Paul 
turns on the use in the Old Testament of the 
singular number and not the plural (σπέρμα, not 
σπέρματα. His meaning is: since the singular is 
used, the passage proves that one individual must 
be referred to, and that must be Christ. The 
passage cannot refer to many descendants of 
Abraham, but must refer to one, that anti-typical 
Son of Abraham, who has the closest spiritual 
relationship with Abraham, the man of faith, 
viz.: Christ. In the original, however, the word 
for seed (YI) is a collective noun, as it regu- 
larly isin the Old Testament in such cases. (So 
Meyer, Weiss and German critics generally). There 
is, 1 think, a truth in both views, which must be rec- 
ognized. Formaliter, the latter view is more nearly 
correct; materialiter, the former. Paul’s method 
of argument is undoubtedly Rabbinic, and he draws 
more from the use of the singular than an exact 
exegesis of the Old Testament can directly justify, 
but not more than according to the typical view of 
prophecy which is pervading in the New Testament, 


The Gospel Antedates the Law, etc.: ii. 1, 135 


can be justly claimed to be involved in the passage. 
The essential idea is: The promise to Abraham 
meets its true, ideal fulfillment only in Christ. The 


argument, if formally unwarranted, rests neverthe- 
less on the profound view of Old Testament proph- 
ecy and history as looking forward to Christ, and 
reaching its culmination only in him. Wieseler 
justly says (Com. im loco): ‘‘That the idea of the 
Messiah is veiled in the Abrahamic promise, and 
that we may understand the expression ‘seed of 
Abraham’ in the light of later revelation to refer 
really to the Messiah, is the thoroughly correct 
view upon which the whole explanation of Paul 
rests, but the form in which he incidentally ex- 
presses this correct view in this passage is due to his 
Rabbinic training.” It is to be remembered that 
Paul’s argument by no means rests upon this par- 
ticular interpretation. Speaking on this point, 
Luther quaintly and aptly says that this argument 
is but the painting of the house which has been 
already built. 

17. Now this I say; A covenant con- 
firmed beforehand by God, the law, 
which came four hundred and thirty 
years after, doth not disannul, so as to 
make the promise of none effect.—Now 
follows the application of what was said in verse 19. 
No third party can break up or add to a covenant 
between two parties. Now the law, if it interfered 


186 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


with the covenant of promise, which pointed to 
Christ, would be doing that. But that it cannot 
do, especially since God is a party to the transac- 
tion. This covenant has faith as its human condi- 
tion. It is a kind of divine ratification beforehand 
of the faith-principle, and especially so because it is 
Messianic. The faith-principle is older and more 
fundamental than the law system. The law came 
in long after,—four hundred and thirty years (Exod. 
xii. 40). In Gen. xv. 13 and Acts vii. 6 it is the 
round number four hundred. In the LXX. at Ex. 
xii. 40 the sojourn in Egypt and Canaan is said to 
be four hundred and thirty years. This reckoning 
is found in Josephus and elsewhere, and would ma- 
terially shorten the sojourn in Egypt. Opinion is 
divided as to which is the more correct. Paul’s 
statement harmonizes with the LXX,, in which 
four hundred and thirty embraces the time from 
Abraham’s call to the Exodus, but is against the 
Old Testament Hebrew text, as we have it, and 
against Acts vii. 6, where four hundred and thirty 
embraces only the Egyptian period. 

18. For if the inheritance is of the law 
it is no more of promise; but God hath 
granted it to Abraham by promise.—This 
verse marks the opposition to which the argument 
has been leading up, the inheritance (ἡ κληρονομία) 
of the Messianic blessing must come either in the line 
of the law or of promise (implying grace and faith). 


The Gospel Antedates the Law, θέο. : iii. 18. 137 


The two are mutually exclusive. If the inheritance 
is in the line of the gracious promise, which has been 
made on condition of faith, and only so, then it can- 
not be of the law (ἐκ νόμου). And the Scriptural argu- 
ment has plainly shown that the former is the case, 
the latter possibility is therefore excluded. Note 
the way in which the gospel (promise, faith, etc.,) is 
brought up in contrast with the law in Gale a 
result of the Judaizing attachment to the Covenant 
which Paul is combating. It is enough in Romans 
to show that faith has always been the way of salva- 
tion and.that sinfulness prevents the practicability of 
justification by works. But here the two must be 
sharply contrasted and their mutual exclusiveness 
shown. When one now adheres to the law he is 
opposing the original divine covenant; setting him- 
self against the primeval way of salvation, and the 
deepest principle of the divine procedure. The law 
came in only as a temporary expedient, a ‘tutor 
unto Christ ” (v. 24). It has no equal rights with 
the promise. It is treated, when such a claim is 
made for it, as an interfering party seeking to break 
up a sealed contract or to get a codicil inserted into 
a will in favor of itself. It serves a good but tem- 
porary end. Now that faith is come we are no 
longer under the provisional tutor (παιδαγωγός). 

19. What then is the law? It was 
added because of transgressions, till the 
seed should come to whom the promise 


138 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


hath. been made; and it was ordained 
through angels by the hand of a medi- 
ator.—Having now shown that the promise ante- 

dates the law, and that the inheritance of Messianic 
blessings is connected with the promise, and not 

with the law, the question arises what were the 

urpose and use of the law? Paul answers: 

It was added because of trangressions 

(τῶν παραβάσεων χάριν προσετέθη). To these words three 
interpretations are given: (1) To check transgres- 

sions (so Olshausen, Neander). This view is 

against the context, and the Pauline doctrine, cf. 
especially Rom. v. 20. (2) That men might r reno: 

nize their transgressions (so Augustine, Calyin, Visas 
Ellicott). This interpretation proceeds in the right Mi 
direction, but does not fully express the Pauline 

view of the function of the law. (8) To multi- 

ply transgressions. The law reveals, provokes, 

and multiplies transgressions (Rom. 111. 20; vil. 7; 

γ. 20). ‘* Where there is no law there is no trans- 
gression (παράβασις), (Rom. iv. 15). There is sin 
(ἁμαρτία) but not transgression. The purpose of | 
the law is to bring out sin into definite expres- the a) 
sion as transgression (so Lightfoot, Meyer). Thusy ὅν, //. 
sin is revealed _to itself, its ill desert is seen, the Kelgymfubd. 
displeasure of God is felt, and the sinner sees him- 

self as guilty and punishable. This knowledge 

leads him to seek salvation. Meyer says: ‘‘ The 

real idea of the Apostle is that the emergence of 


συν 


The Gospel Antedates the Law, ete. : iii. 19. 139 


sins, viz., in the penal wrath-deserving moral form 
of transgressions, which the law brought about was 
designed by God (who must indeed have foreseen 
this effect), when he gave the law, and designed in 
fact as ἃ mediate end in reference to the future 
redemption; for the evil was to become truly great 
that it might nevertheless be outdone by grace” 
(Rom. v. 20). Paul holds that what the law did 
it wag intended to do. Does it then increase sin 
and was this its purpose? Not in the sense of 
enhancing the amount of moral _evil in the world, 
but in the sense of bringing out_this evil into the 


form of conscious transgression where it can be 


seen and felt, and therefore forsaken. The law 
provokes in this sin a reaction against itself, and it 
pursts into expression and activity, but its principle 
was there before. The sin was not created by the 
the law, but only its expression, (transgression), Was 
caused or stimulated by the law. Was added 
(προσετέθη) indicates that the law was something 
supplementary to the promise. Cf. “Came in 


aa 


beside” (τπαρεισῆλθεν, Rom. y. 20). It holds a sec- 


ondary rank compared with the promise. The 


seed (τὸ σπέρμα) here refers to Christ, (cf. verse 16). 
To whom the promise hath been made 
(ἐπήγγελται) 3 the perfect tense denotes the past and 


abiding fact of the confirmed promise. Ordained 


through angels (διαταγεὶς δὲ ἀγγέλων); the law was or- 
dained through the mediation of angels, and was en- 


140 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


trusted toa mediator, Moses. ‘The reference to the 
mediation of angels in the giving of the law is 
found in the LXX. rendering of Deut. xxxiii. 2. 
The original passage is uncertain in meaning, since 
there is doubt regarding the pointing of a word 
which in our text signifies ‘“‘ Holiness ” (2 0): hence, 
ἐς myriads of holiness.” Some, however, interpret 
_ this word to mean Kadesh, (and indeed so the LXX. 
but they also add the reference to angels, which 
must, therefore, have been found in the text used 
by them). Rabbinical literature greatly elaborated 
this idea of angel mediation; it is also fouyen in Heb. 
li. 2. | ws 
By the hand (ὧν yepi) may be τοὶ ae J 
(so Meyer) as a reference to Moses receiving the 
tables of the law; or understood as a Hebraism 2 
(73). Mediator, yao that is, Moses, and 
not Christ, (as the Church Fathers usually under- 
gh stood, At), an interpretation which would confuse 
4. wr the “argument. Is this introduction of angels and 
Moses designed to depreciate the law. as compared / 
with the promise (as most critics maintain), or to 
exalt the promise by showing that such a glorious 
system as the law was auxiliary to it? (So Meyer, 
Winer, Wieseler). Cf., in this connection, the - 
argument in Heb. ii. 1-4. Which is more directly 
appropriate to the Apostle’s course of thought in 
our passage, a glorifying, or a relative depreciation | 
e.g of the law? I think the latter. 


Phe bE . ζ ~4.. 


The Gospel Antedates the Law, etc.: iii. 20. 141 


20. Now a mediator is not a mediator 
of one; but God is one.—The connection of 
thought may be indicated thus: In the case of the 
giving of the law there was a mediator, Moses. 
That impled something of the nature of a contract, 
because a mediator involves two parties; God was. 
one party and the people of Israel the other. The 
law-system therefore, might be terminated when- 
ever the relations of the parties might require it. 
It was relative and conditional. But in the case of 


the promise there was no mediator; that is, it was 
an act of God alone and was absolute and uncondi- 
tional. The promise was a sovereign declaration 
proceeding from God and extending to all time. It 
therefore stands upon a higher plane than this 
mediated and conditional system. The sense of the 
words, therefore is: ‘‘ Now a mediator implies two 
parties, but God (in making the promise) is one, 
that is, stands alone and is sovereign in his action.” 
Hence the implied conclusion: ‘The promise has an 
absolute character, as compared with the contingent. 
law-system, and thus stands above it. 

21. 15 the law then against the prom- 
1565 of God? God forbid: for if there had 
been a law given which could make alive, 
verily righteousness would have been of 
the law.—But now, the question arises: If the 
law and the promise stand on different planes, shall 
we go further and say that they are in antagonism? 


143 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


No, answers the Apostle, and why? Because they 
serve different ends and cannot be compared. Those — 
things cannot be said to be in antagonism which do 
not come into competition at all. If the law ever 
could have saved men, then an antagonism might, 
perhaps, be spoken of, but since it could not do this, 
it could not be said to be a rival system to the prom- 
ise. The full reason for Paul’s denial of such a 
conclusion (μὴ γένοιτο) is contained in the whole pas- 
sage, vv. 21-24, and may be summarized thus: 
““ If there had ever been any law which could have 
given life, then righteousness might have been at- 
tained by means of it, and that law would have been 
a rival of the promise; but, as a matter of fact, 
the Mosaic law, so far from giving life, pronounces a 
curse, shuts men up under sin as if in prison, and 
holds them there in ward, until the promise comes 
and deliversthem. Thus the immediate aim of the 
law is not to procure salvation, but only to make men 
conscious of their need of Christ, by showing them 
their guilt. The law thus has its purpose as sub- 
ordinate to the gospel, and hence can never be 
against it or come into rivalry with it.” 

22. Howbeit the scripture hath shut up 
all things under sin, that the promise by 
faith in Jesus Christ might be given to 
them that believe.—This verse points the con- 
trast between such a case as is supposed in y. 21, 
and the actual case of the Mosaic law. Paul cites 


The Preparatory Office of the Law: iil. 23. 148 


the testimony of the Old Testament in regard to 
what the Mosaic law does. The scripture (per- 
sonified) hath shut up all things under sin; ὁ. 
e. by showing men how sinful they were, it kept them 
shut up as under a charge of guilt until the time of 
the Messianic deliverance. All things (τὰ πάντα) 
is the neuter plural-of category referring to persons, 
(cf. 1 Cor. i. 2%, 28). But this custody was not for 
its own sake, but as a necessary step toward the 
final fulfillment of the gracious promise. ‘The pur- 
pose is stated in the clause beginning that the 
promise, etc. Promise (ἐπαγγελία) is here equiva- 
lent to the fulfillment of the promise (ὦ. ¢., of course, 
justification) as the verb might be given (δοθῇ) 
shows. The idea of faith being the condition of re- 
ceiving this promise is twice stated in the phrases 
by faith (ἐκ πίστεως) and them that believe 
(τοῖς πιστεύουσιν), VeTY probably because Paul is not 
content to say that it is given to believers (which 
all would allow), but wishes to especially emphasize 
the idea that it is given them by faith (emphatic) 
and not also “by works,” as the Judaizing Chris- 
tians would suppose. | 


Ill. THE DIscIPLINARY AND PREPARATORY OFFICE 
oF THE LAW, 23-29. 


23. But before faith came, we were 
kept in ward under the law, shut up unto 
the faith which should afterwards be re- 


144 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


vealed:—Faith is here half personified (cf. the 
predicate came) and objectively treated, but with- 
out ceasing to mean subjective faith in Christ. 
The thought is : ‘‘ Before the gospel whose charac- 
teristic is faith, came,” etc. We were kept in 
Ward (ἐφρουρούμεθα), 7. &., We (Jews) were kept in 
ward by the law (personified) as disobedient slaves 
are shut up in prison by their master; shut up 
unto 7. 6. until the coming (for our deliverance) of 
the faith about to be revealed. The law did its ut- 
most when it imprisoned us. It must wait for 
faith to come and open the door. Unto (cic) de- 
notes the end contemplated in the action of shutting 
up ; it was that (by exercising faith) we might be 
released. 

24. So that the law hath been our tutor 
to bring us unto Christ, that we might be 
justified by faith.—This statement concludes 
the description of the function of the law and sums 
up all that has been said concerning it. It ““ has 
become ” (γέγονεν) in the divine providence our tutor 
unto Christ (cai. εἰς Χριστόν), This phrase has 
often been understood thus: As the pedagogue (gen 
erally a slave) in ancient times conducted the boy 
to school, so the law conducts us to the school of 
Christ, that we may learn of him (so Chrysostom, 
Erasmus). But this hangs too much on the word 
““ pedagogue ” or tutor, to the neglect of the context. 


The thought rather is that the law trained and 


The Preparatory Office of the Law: iii. 34. 145 


disciplined the Jews for Christianity. Nor is the 
idea here ‘that the law restrained from sin, and so 
was a preparation for Christ; but the reference is to 
that harsh treatment which the law administers to 
sinful men which constitutes its pedagogic function, 
its pronouncing of a curse upon them, and shutting 
them up under accusation, (so Meyer, Lightfoot 
and most moderns). The method of this discipline 
is sketched in Rom. vii. It prepares men for Christ 
because it begets dissatisfaction with themselves, 
reveals their sins, and (as Luther says) ““ humbles 
the proud to desire Christ’s aid.” On the force of 
the phrase unto Christ, Luther quaintly says: 
“*For what a schoolmaster were he which would 
always torment and beat the child and teach him 
nothing at all? And yet, such schoolmasters there 
_ were in time past when schools were nothing else 
but a prison and a very hell, and the schoolmasters 
cruel tyrants and very butchers. The children 
were always beaten, they learned with continual 
pain and travail, and yet few of them came to any 
proof. The law is not such a schoolmaster. For it 
doth not only terrify and torment, as the foolish 
schoolmaster beateth his scholars and teacheth them 
nothing, but with his rods he driveth us unto Christ, 
like as a good schoolmaster instructeth and exer- 
ciseth his scholars in reading and writing, to the 
end that they may come to the knowledge of good 
letters and other profitable things, that afterwards 
10 


146 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


they may have a delight in doing of that which be- 
fore, when they were constrained thereunto, they 
did against their wills” (Commentary 7 loco). 

Again Luther pithily says: ‘‘ Therefore the law 
doth not only kill, but it killeth that we may live.” 

25. But now that faith is come, we are 
no longer under a tutor.—Since the law had 
it as its purpose to usher in the faith-system, it fol- 
lows that, when that system enters, the law ceases 
to be in effect. Faith is here also objectively 
treated and almost personified, but still meaning, — 
not primarily a doctrine, but an act of trust. We 
designates primarily Jews who had been under the 
tutor. The Gentiles, of course, had never been 
under the law. 

26. For ye are all sons of God, through 
faith, in Christ Jesus.—The assurance, that 
the Jews are no longer under the tutor, the Apostle 
grounds by the general statement that the Galatian 
Christians, whether Jews or Gentiles, are sons of 
God. How should sonship to God prove that Chris- 
tians are not under the law? Because, in the Apos- 
tle’s view, the state under the law is a bondage in 
which men are servants (δοῦλοι), and not sons (vio/). 
The adoption (υἱοθεσία) brings in ‘‘ the liberty of the 
glory of the children of God ” (Rom. viii. 14, 15 
seq.) Hence to be sons of God is to be free from 
the law, to enjoy the sense of pardon and of liberty | 
from all that bondage and guilt which the law en- 


The Preparatory Office of the Law: ili. 26. 147 


genders. Ye, Galatian Christians, are al] (em- 
phatic position) such. The primary emphasis is on 
all as embracing Christians without distinction; 
and the secondary on sons Of God as the con- 
trast to the servitude ‘‘under a tutor.” The 
phrase: In Christ Jesus, may be taken either 
with ye are or with the word faith. The con- 
struction of the preposition here used (ἐν) after the 
words ‘*‘ faith” (πίστις) or believing (πιστεύειν) OCCUYS 

yy only in Mark i, 15; Eph. i. 18. It may be said, on 
the one hand, that taken with ‘‘ faith ” it is superflu- 
ous, because the meaning of “faith” is evident; to 
which it may be answered, that it adds a full and 
solemn emphasis to the meaning of the faith which 
is set in contrast to the law. The R. V. favors the 
former (so Lightfoot, Wieseler); the A. V. favors 
the latter (so Meyer and Ellicott); I prefer the lat- 
ter construction. 

27. For as many of you as were bap- 
tized into Christ did put on Chzist.—The 
Apostle now explains the nature of this relation of 
sonship and faith: “‘ Why do I insist that all you 
Christians are sons of God, entitled to the liberty 
and joy of sonship? I do so because all you who have 
been baptized, have entered into this deep and close 
union with Christ which constitutes your freedom 
and your salvation. So great things can be predi- 
cated of faith because it has brought you into such 
vital communion with Christ.’ 


1418. The Epistle to the Galatians. 


Tobe baptized into Christ (ar. εἰς Χριστόν) 
means to enter by baptism into the relationship of 
fellowship with Christ. Baptism is here expressly 
treated from the standpoint of the faith which it 
presupposes. The statement is introduced as an ex- 
planation of the sonship to God which arises on con- 
dition of faith. The statement is practically equiv- 
alent to: as many as have believed have entered 
into a spiritual union with Christ. (Qf. Rom. vi. 
3). The figure of “ putting on Christ” is very 
probably derived from the putting on of clothing, 
which comes to be applied to the taking on of quali- 
ties such as righteousness, shame, ete. In the 
Apostle’s language it expresses the mystical union 
into which the believer enters with Christ at his 
conversion. Christ becomes, as it were, the life- 
element of the soul; Christ is in the believer, he is 
in Christ, his life is hid with Christ in God. He 
has put on Christ, entered into fellowship of life 
with him, so that in his relations to Christ are 
found the deepest meanings of his life. 

28. There can be neither Jew nor 
Greek, there can be neither bond nor 
free, there can be no male and female; 
for ye all are one man in Christ Jesus. 
—Since this freedom and sonship are shared by all 
Christians by virtue of their common relation to 
Christ, it follows that there is among them a union 
deeper than diversities of nation, condition or sex. 


The Preparatory Office of the Law: iii. 28. 149 


The student of the original text will notice that 
while the relation of Jew and Greek, and of bond 
and free, are contrasted by the emphatic negative 
(ovdé), the terms male and female are connected by 
and (ai), indicating the difference of this distinc- 
tion from those social ones mentioned above. The 
meaning of the.verse is not, that Christianity 
knows no such distinctions in themselves, but that 
Christianity knows no such distinctions as essential 
or determining. It goes beneath and behind all 
these natural diversities and lays a deep ground 
for unity beneath them. ‘The thought is: So far 
as any of these distinctions have ever been grounds 
of separation and estrangement among mankind, 
they are now non-existent, for those who breathe 
the one spirit which emanates from Christ. 

29. And if ye are Christ’s then are ye 
Abraham’s seed, heirs according to prom- 
ise.—If ye belong to Christ who is pre-eminently 
the seed of Abraham, then are ye also his seed, 
that is, true spiritual descendants of Abraham. Not 
those who are in lineal descent from Abraham and 
who make their boast in the law, but those who, 
like Abraham, exercise faith, are his true spiritual 
sons. They are like him, walk in his footsteps, 
and illustrate that which was most characteristic 
and significant in his life. The believers, then, are 
the true inheritors of the Messianic salvation. This 
is said in opposition to the Apostle’s Judaizing 


150 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


opponents, who made heirship to depend also upon 
observance of the law. The great terms of the dis- 
cussion thus far are, according to Paul’s system, on 
the divine side, ‘‘ promise” (ἐπαγγελία): on the 
human side “faith ” (πίστι). Result, in the former 
case, ““ inheritance” (κληρονομία) or ‘‘ righteousness ” 
(δικαιοσύνη); the correlative terms in the view op- 
posed by the Apostle are, on the divine side, ‘‘ the 
law” (ὁ νόμος); on the human, “ works” (ἔργα νόμου), 
and the result a ‘‘ curse” (κατάρα). 


ANALYSIS AND PARAPHRASE OF CHAP- 
‘TBR IV. 


1. Our position under the law and under the 
Gospel, 1-?.—The heir, before he attains his major- 
ity, can no more enter upon the actual possession of 
his destined estate, than can a bond servant in the 
family possess himself of it (1). Until the set time, 
he must continue in a subordinate position, under 
the authority and discipline of others (2). Our 
position (he is here thinking more particularly of 
the Jewish Christians) under the law was analo- 
gous. We were as children, having a great inher- 
itance (the gospel) in prospect, but kept in a 
preparatory process of training (3), but the coming 
of Christ marks the period of release from this 
tutelage and of entrance upon the promised posses- 
sion (4,5). This full sense of sonship is imparted 
by the testimony of the Holy Spirit to the heart of 
the believer, assuring him of the divine fatherhood 
(6); hence we are no longer in the position of ser- 
vants, but in that of the sons of full age in the 
family who have attained the clear consciousness of 

151 


152 Analysis and Paraphrase of Chapter IV. 


sonship and with it have entered upon their right- 
ful, destined possession, {7/ 

2. The stage of religious development represented 
by the law, 8-11.—(He is speaking now more par- 
ticularly with reference to the Gentile Christians). 
We were all in bondage before we became Chris- 
tians, either to the law, or under a worse master, 
idolatry (8); but since we have through Christ 
learned to know the true and only God, or rather, 
since he has made himself known to us, how un- 
reasonable in us to wish to return to an elemen- 
tary stage of religion again, by continuing to 
adhere to the Jewish observances. That is like 
going back to bondage after having been once set 
free (9). This you Galatians are doing; your ob- 
servances of Jewish feast-days and ceremonies, 
make me afraid that my labor among you will 
prove to have been for naught (10, 11). 

3. Exhortatiou to the Galatians to return to the 
true Christian position, 12-20.—Let me plead with — 
you to come to my point of view in this matter, 
even as I, in renouncing Judaism, put myself upon 
the same plane with you Gentiles (12). I hope for — 
this result from my experience of your former kind- 
ness and attachment, for I remember that when I 
was detained among you by sickness, in consequence 
of which I became your Christian teacher, you did 
not consider my presence among you burdensome, 
nor did your regard fail to endure the test to which 


Analysis and Paraphrase of Chapter IV. 153 


it was put; on the contrary, you received me with 
the utmost,—indeed, with excessive honor (13, 14). 
But all seems changed now! You appear not to 
count it any felicity now to receive and obey my 
instructions. How great the change of temper, for 
when I was among you, you would gladly have 
made the greatest- sacrifice for me (15). Have I 
become the object of your enmity because I now 
urge upon you the true and only gospel (16)? 

Those who are leading you astray from my teach- 
ing (the Judaizing leaders) are indeed eager in 
courting your favor, but it is in no good spirit and 
for no good end; what they really seek is to impart 
to you an exclusive and partisan spirit (cf. notes), 
that they may attach you to themselves as followers 
and supporters (17). It is always well to be zeal- 
ously sought after by others if the object of this 
enthusiasm is a worthy one. I do not begrudge 
you this attention from others; when I am absent 
others must exercise this care (cf. notes), (18). My 
children, so great is my anxiety for you on account 
of your defection from the truth that I seem to be 
again undergoing the pains and labors by which you 
were brought into the church. I should be glad to 
be personally present with you and to adopt a less 
censorious tone; for I am perplexed and uncertain 
whether I can by any means win you back and 
would gladly make all possible efforts (19, 20). 

4, A narrative from the law itself may be allegor- 


154 Analysis and Paraphrase of Chapter IV. 


ically applied so as to illustrate the truth that those 
who adhere to the law are in bondage, 21-v. 1.—My 
readers who are familiar with the Old Testament 
will readily recall the history of Abraham’s two 
sons, Ishmael and Isaac, the former the child of the 
bondwoman, Hagar, whose birth was merely in the 
ordinary course of nature, and Isaac, the child of 
Sarah, born in accordance with a divine promise 
(21-23). These persons and events have an alle- 
gorical significance. The two women, Hagar and 
Sarah, represent respectively the Old and the New 
Testament systems; the former—the bondwoman— 
corresponds to the covenant whose sign or symbol is. 
Mt. Sinai, since her children, like those who con-. 
tinue under the Old Covenant, are brought forth in. 
and for a state of bondage (24). Now this analogy 
is the more appropriate because Mt, Sinai is actu- 
ally situated in Arabia, the land of Hagar’s de- 
scendants (so R. V. margin; cf. notes).* If, then, 
Hagar fitly represents Sinai, she may as fitly be said 
to represent the earthly city of Jerusalem, which 
stands as a symbol of the Jewish religion. Sinai 
and Jerusalem have the same religious significance. 
Jerusalem (personified as the mother of the Jewish 
people), like Hagar and her descendants, is in 


* Following the text of the R. V. the analysis would be: 
Now the correspondence between Hagar and Sinai is seen 
in the fact that the name Hagar is applied to the mountaim 
by the people of Arabia, etc. 


Analysis and Paraphrase of Chapter IV. 155 


bondage with her children (25). But the upper 
Jerusalem, the spiritual commonwealth, typified by 
Sarah, is free and, since she is the mother of all 
believers, her children (Christians) are also free 
(26). Our spiritual mother may rejoice, therefore, 
in the language of ancient prophecy concerning the 
hope of the childless, and we, her children, like 
Isaac, are heirs of God’s gracious promise, made to 
all believers (27, 28). 

But as in ancient days, so now, the spiritual must 
suffer persecution from the unspiritual (29). But 
as then, the Ishmaelites were rejected from the true 
theocracy, so now shall the unfree Jews who persist 
in refusing their spiritual freedom in Christ, be 
_ excluded from the people of God (30). We are free 
then; let us maintain and prize our freedom and 
not surrender it by returning to the bondage with 
which the law enslaves those who try to be saved by 
its works (21, v. 1). 


CHAPTER IV. 


I. Ovr ΡΟΒΊΤΙΟΝ UNDER THE LAW AND UNDER 
THE GOSPEL, 1-7. 


1. ButI say that so long as the heir is a 
child, he differeth nothing from a bond- 
servant, though he is lord of all.—This 
verse explains that even the one who is the destined 
heir in the family, must continue for a time with- 
out entering upon his possession. Until he is of 
age he cannot inherit, but remains, so far as posses- 
sion in his own right is concerned, on the same 
plane with a servant in the family. Instead of 
being master he is more in the position of a servant 
(δοῦλος), SO long as he is under age (νήπιος). 

2. Butis under guardians and stewards 
until the term appointed of the father.— 
He is under guardians, overseers (ἐπέτροποι) and 
stewards (οἰκονόμοι) who exercise authority over him 
and discipline him, notwithstanding his destined 
superiority. Now we Jews, continues the Apostle in 
vy. 3, were in this case. We were destined to 
possess the Messianic inheritance, but not before 
| 156 | 


Our Position under the Law, etc.: iv. 2. 157 


the time. There was a period of our minority 
when we must stand on the plane of servants and 
receive tutelage and chastisement. That was the 
law-period, and the law was the disciplinarian. 
This was the period of waiting and training. But 
now the time of our majority is come. We should 
enter into our divinely destined inheritance. 
Child (νήπιος) may mean either a babe, or a legal 
minor (as here). Commonly in Paul’s writings it is 
opposed to a mature, full-grown man (τέλειος). 
Here it is practically so, but the contrast is not 
explicitly made, because the Apostle changes the 
figure of minority vs. majority, and shades off into 
that of servitude and sonship, in verse 5 seq. 
Differeth nothing from (οὐδὲν διαφέρει), 1. 6. 
so far as the necessity of discipline and training is 
concerned. He is indeed prospective master but 
must in his youth be governed and trained by 
others, just as much as if he were the child of a 
bondservant in the family. Though he is lord 
of all, ‘Lord of all in prospect though he is.” 
During his nonage he is under guardians or 
overseers, who have charge of his education, and 
stewards, who have the management of the 
property which he will inherit, untilthe term ap- 
pointed (ἄχρι τῆς προθεσμίας----80. ἡμέρας---τοῦ πατρός); the 
time which must elapse before the attainment of full 
age is here spoken of as being determined by the 
father. In both Jewish and Roman law the age at 


158 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


which Euority was reached was determined by 
statute; but Paul was in no way concerned 
with the technical arrangements on this point. It 
serves better as an illustration to speak of the 
father as determining the time, which indeed he 
could do so far as to put an end to the tutelage 
under which he chose to have his child trained. 
-'The question is sometimes raised whether the father 
is conceived of as living ? It is irrelevant to Paul’s 
argument. Does the ‘“‘we” (v. 3) refer to the 
Jews (Wieseler) or to all Christians (Meyer)? The 
answer must be: Strictly, to the Jews who alone 
were under the tutelage of the law, and the servi- 
tude connected therewith, though the same princi- 
ples might be equally well applied, with change of 
terms, to the pre-Christian Gentile world who 
possessed an analogue to the Mosaic law, the revela- 
tion of God in nature and conscience. (Rom. i. 18-- 
23). 

3. So we also, when we were children, 
were held in bondage under the rudi- 
ments of the world.—We (Jews) were in our 
pre-Christian state enslaved under the rudi- 
ments of the world (τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου) ; evi- 
dently a designation for the law. What does it 
mean? ‘The same expression is found in Ool. ii. 8 
and 20, ‘‘If ye died with Christ to the rudiments of 
the world,” why do ye, as living (in a pre-Christian 
state), subject yourselves to such ascetic rules as 


Our Position under the Law, etc.: iv. 3. 159 


“‘touch not, taste not, handle not,” etc.? Hence 
these ascetic abstinences (δόγματα), are examples of 
the rudiments of the world spoken of. In Gal. 
iv. 9, where those who are heathen are addressed, 
we have the term rudiments (στοιχεῖα) used of Jew- 
ish observances to which the Galatians were in- 
clined to turn, and, by clear implication, used to 
characterize their former idolatrous worship. The 
expression may, therefore, refer to those elementary 
and imperfect religious devotions and observances, 
whether Jewish or heathen, which preceded Chris- 
tianity. The same word is applied in Heb. v. 12 to 
the elements of Christian doctrine. 

These observances and services of imperfect 
religions are rudiments in so far as they repre- 
sent only an imperfect state of religious knowledge. 
They belong to the world (κόσμος), as being out- 
ward and visible, the symbols and pictures of spirit- 
ual realities. They belong to this present sphere of 
sensuous and transient existence and do not rise to 
the sphere of eternal, spiritual realities. Yet that 
the law is so characterized must never be supposed 
to militate against its divine origin and character. 
It is of divine origin, but it is at the same time 
imperfect and provisional. Its highest dignity and 
honor are found in the fact that it ministers to the 
bringing in of the Gospel. As Luther justly insists, 
we are to remember that Paul’s seeming deprecia- 
tion of the law, is in view of its utter inability to 


160 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


justify. Luther however speaks too strongly when 
he says: ‘‘ Because Paul is here in the matter of 
justification, it was necessary that he should speak 
of the law as a thing very contemptible and 
odious.” 

4. But when the fulness of the time 
came, God sent forth his Son, born of a 
woman, born under the law:—The fulness 
here denotes, ‘‘that which fills up something,” 
complementum; the meaning is, when the time 
which completes the period of waiting, came. The 
coming of Christ into the world is at the end of a 
destined time of preparation during which the con- 
sciousness of a need of salvation should be developed, 
as is evident from 111. 19, 24, and from Rom. vy. 20, 
21. 

The words: God sent forth his Son, cer- 
tainly presuppose the preéxistence of Christ, as do 
the kindred expressions in Rom. viii. 3; II Cor. vii. J 
9, and especially the locus classicus, Phil. 11. 5 seq. 
In Col. i. 15, Christ is called ‘‘ the image of the in- 
visible God, the first-born of every creature,” that is, 
the embodiment and revelation of the Father and the 
one whose existence antedates that of every created 
thing, and is also described (v. 16) as the one 
through whom is mediated the creation of all 
things. That Paul teaches the personal preéxist- 
ence of Christ is not denied by competent scholars 
whether they themselves hold that doctrine or not. 


Our Position under the Law, etc.: iv. 4. 161 


It is commonly thought that the logical starting- 
point for the development of the doctrine of the 
preéxistence with Paul is his view of the exalted 
Christ. Perhaps, in that case, the idea of the incar- 
nation and humiliation, as found especially in II 
Cor. viii. 9 and Phil. ii. 5, seg., would come next in 
logical order of development. But these three 
ideas certainly belong inseparably together in the 
Pauline system, and no chronological order in their 
development can be confidently determined. 

Born of a woman (γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός),----ἴοῦ 
show that he came ina human manner into human 
life, while the words, born under the law 
(γεν. ὑπὸ νόμον), emphasize the idea of his coming into 
full natural relations as a Jew. He was a real man 
and areal Jew. The participle as employed the sec- 
ond time should have the same sense as in the first 
case, viz: born. (So R. V. vs. A. V.). The 
phrase born of a woman does not intimate any 
idea of a supernatural birth, nor does Paul elsewhere. 
‘He may have known nothing of this subject, which 
lay outside the current apostolic tradition, and 
may not have gained currency in the church until 
considerably later, as a result of subsequent inquir- 
ies, (cf. Luke i. 1-4). Paul has nowhere given any 
intimation on this subject. It is too much to say 

(with Pfleiderer) that he denies the supernatural 
generation of Christ. He says that Christ is 


‘according to the flesh” (κατὰ σάρκα), son of David 
11 


162 The Epistle to the Galatians. | 


(Rom. i. 3), which would be just as true in literal 
fact, if he was the putative son of Joseph, provided 
the genealogy of Luke is that of Mary, since that 
genealogy traces Christ’s descent through David’s | 
line. It is evident that the Apostle regards it as a 
necessary condition of saving men that the Christ 
should come into their condition. He is born 
under the law that “he might redeem them 
which were under the law,” (v. 5). The thought is 
similar in Rom. viii. 3; Christ entered into the 
sphere of the flesh that he might destroy the power 
of sin which rules there. What is the causal con- 
nection between Christ’s taking the condition of 
those whom he would save and the salvation itself? 
Or, to put the question more specifically, and with 
reference to our present passage, why, according to 
Paul, must Christ become subject to the law in 
order to save those who are under it, (the Jews)? 

The following views may be noted: 

(1) It was that, by perfect obedience to the law, 
he might exhibit the true life and thus set men 
upon the course of a similar life of obedience. 

(2) It was that this perfect obedience might be 
imputed to the disobedient. He came under the 
law and perfectly obeyed it, and his obedience 
serves for ours by being reckoned to us. 

The following difficulties have been urged against 
this view: | 

(a) The point in the discussion turns upon sav- 


Our Position under the Law, etc. : iv. 4. 168 


ing the Jews (oi ὑπὸ νόμον), and not upon the doctrine 
of salvation in general. The view overlooks the 
Pauline use of law (= the Mosaic law), and makes it 
signify moral law in general. Per contra, it is said, 
that law is for Paul the concrete embodiment of 
divine or moral law in general. But is Paul so 
treating it here in our passage? It can hardly be 
maintained that he is. 

(ὁ) There is no mention in Paul’s writings of the 
imputation of Christ’s obedience to us. Two 
things are said to be imputed: faith (generally), 
and righteousness (not Christ’s personal righteous- 
ness, but that status or character of righteousness 
into which faith introduces us), so that these two 
resolve into precisely the same thing. 

(3) It may be held that Gal. iii. 13 furnishes the 
key for the solution of the question. Christ redeems 
the Jews from the curse by coming under the law 
and receiving its curse upon himself. Bearing the 
curse for them he can liberate them from it. 
There still remains the difficulty mentioned above 
[denoted by (a)] which, however, may be solved on 
Pauline principles by the view presented in Rom. 
}. that the Gentiles are also under law in the sense 
of having a revelation of God in nature and in 
conscience which renders them without excuse and 
proves them sinful and guilty. If so, then the 
“curse”? which rested upon the Gentiles, came 
upon Christ as truly as that which rested upon the 


164 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


Jews, and in the same sense. This view, if taken, 
decides nothing as to the exact sense in which 
Christ assumed the curse,—a question to which Paul 
has given no explicit answer. He, however, points 
out (Rom. iii. 25), that it was in such a way as to 
reveal God’s righteousness and to show him to be 
just in effecting this work of Christ, while he, at the 
same time, graciously provides salvation for sinful 
men. Doubtless Christ comes under the law, 
first of all, that he may perfectly obey the law: 
Rom. y. 19, ‘‘on account of the obedience of one 
many are made righteous;” II Cor. v. 21, ‘“‘He 
made him to be sin for us. who knew no sin, that we 


οὖς might become the righteousness of God in him.” 


How should his obedience accomplish this result 
for and in us? Perhaps because, though obeying 
the law perfectly, he yet comes under its curse 
(becomes a ““ curse,”—becomes ‘‘ sin”), thus show- 
ing that this curse does not come upon him on his 
own account, but is assumed vicariously for us. 
His perfect obedience is thus the condition prece- 
dent of his vicarious suffering, because if he had 
not been perfectly obedient, he would have deserved 
the curse and must have borne it for himself and 
not for us. His perfect obedience avails for us, 
according to Paul, neither, primarily, by way of 
example, nor by way of imputation, but by being 
the essential prerequisite of the vicarious bearing 
of the curse on our behalf. Neither does this fact 


Our Position under the Law, etc.: iv. 5. 165 


determine the sense in which he bears the curse, 
—which always remains a problem of speculative 
theology,—but only gives the form and order of the 
Pauline thought. 

5. That he might redeem them which 
were under the law, that we might re- 
ceive the adoption of sons.—In the second 
clause: that we might receive, etc., the 
thought which had been moving in the Jewish 
sphere, broadens to embrace all Christians, whether 
Jewish or Gentile, as the recipients of the adoption. 
The word rendered receive (lit. to “‘receive back,” 
ἀπολάβωμεν), is understood: (a) to receive back what 
was lost in Adam, (so Augustine). A fatal objec- 
tion to this view is, that it makes υἱοθεσία mean 
‘“sonship,” whereas it means adoption; (0) to re- 
ceive back as due or destined for us, as the result of 
the promise; (6) to receive from (ἀπό), the redemp- 
tion, as its fruit or consequence; (d) simply receive 
(ΞΞ- λάβωμεν) (So, Meyer, R. V.) Usage favors making 
ἀπολ. express something more than λάβωμεν and 
very probably the idea of either (0) or (0) may be 
implied, though it is, perhaps, impracticable to 
recognize it in translation. 

6. And because ye are sons, God sent 
forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, 
erying, Abba, Father.—The “adoption” 
being now accomplished in objective fact, the 
Apostle next alludes to the subjective certitude of 


166 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


it. Because ye (without distinction of Jew and 
Gentile) are sons, did God send forth his Spirit, 
which could not have been done for those under the 
bondage of the law. The possession of the Spirit 
is at once the consequence and the proof of son- 
ship. ‘The specific designation, the Spirit of his 
Son, is no doubt chosen with regard to the term 
sons above. Since ye are sons, God has sent the 
Spirit of him who is preéminently God’s Son. Ye 
share the same Spirit with the divine Son. The 
term means distinctively the Holy Spirit. The 
believer is conceived of as being the organ of the 
Holy Spirit, who, entering his heart, cries aloud, 
ὦ. €., enables the man to say, Abba, Father, by 
inspiring within him the consciousness and expe- 
rience of sonship to God. Cf. Rom. viii. 15. The 
point is that the Holy Spirit inspires the sense of 
sonship. 

Abba, Father (Αββᾶ ὁ πατήρ), is a somewhat 
stereotyped phrase (Rom. villi. 15; Mark xiv. 36), 
evidently resulting from the use of the Aramaie 
word “Abba” in prayer; but whether from Christ’s 
own use of it (as Meyer supposes), or only from its 
use by the Jews cannot be determined. Others sup- 
pose that ‘‘Father” is added only to explain the 
word ‘“‘Abba” to Gentile readers, but it probably 
was too common to need such explanation. Cf. 
the devotional use in many languages of the 
Hebrew ‘‘ Amen.” 


Our Position under the Law, etc. : iv. ἢ. 167 


7. So that thou art no longer a bondser- 
vant, but ason; and ifa son, then an heir 
through God.—This is the application to the 
individual (thou art), of the conclusion that 
Christians are sons and heirs. It is here seen that 
Paul treats the bondage (δουλεία) as practically 
belonging to the Gentiles as well as the Jews under 
the law, showing that, in principle, the bondage 
and curse of the Jews under the law was representa- 
tive of the state of the whole world. Thou (Jew or 
Gentile) art not a bondservant, (δοῦλος) (which 
therefore each had been), but a son, and if a son 
also an heir. ‘The inheritance here spoken of refers 
to the Messianic blessedness which God had 
promised. Now only the sons inherit, hence son- 
ship and inheritance are one and indivisible. We 
may here note the transitions of thought, from 
Jews in 5 (a), to all Christians in 5 (0); and from 
Christians in general in 6 (a), to the individual 
Christian in 6 (Ὁ. For the expression through 
God (διὰ θεοῦ), the Textus Receptus (so A. V.) reads 
“fof God through Christ ” (θεοῦ διὰ Χριστοῦ). The 
former reading is overwhelmingly attested and 
is adopted by all recent critics. The sense prob- 
ably is: an heir through the adopting act of God. 
The representation throughout this passage is pre- 
vailingly that of sonship by adoption, and not, as 
with John, that of sonship to God by new birth. 
If the former figure is kept in mind, the appar- 


168 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


ent harshness of the reading ‘‘ through God” is 
lessened. It may have been the overlooking of this 
fact by copyists which occasioned the gloss found in 
the Textus Receptus. 


Il. THe STAGE oF RELIGIOUS DEVELOPMENT REP- 
RESENTED BY THE Law, 8-11. 


8. Howbeit at that time, not knowing 
God, ye were in bondage to them which 
by nature are no gods.—Paul here alludes to 
their ignorant condition as unconverted heathen in 
contrast to their ideal Christian position. How- 
beit (ἀλλά) points this contrast between their true 
and proper sonship to God, previously described, 
and the fact that they now desire to return to a 
condition as far below it as that in which they were 
at their conversion. The terms, at that time 
(τότε μέν) and ‘‘ but now ” (viv dé, ver. 9), contrast their 
past ignorance with their present knowledge, not- 
withstanding which they are ready to fall down 
upon the lower plane of bondage. As once in 
service to those beings which are not in their real 
nature gods, but only ‘‘so-called gods” (λεγόμενοι θεοί), 
(see I Cor. viii. 5), and in reality ‘‘ demons ” 
(δαιμόνια) (see I Cor. x. 20), it might be thought that 
they would appreciate and use their better knowl- 
edge. Thus Paul puts the present Jewish-Christian 
and the present Heathen-Christian state in the same 
category. The one he describes as a ‘‘ childhood,” 


feligious Development under the Law: iv. 9. 169 


to the other he imputes “‘ignorance;” both are a 
“‘bondage,” both religions are elementary,—illus- 
trations of the ‘‘ rudiments of the world.” 

9. But now that ye have come to know 
God, or rather to be known of God, how 
turn ye back again to the weak and beg- 
garly rudiments, whereunto ye desire to 
be in bondage over again ?—Now that ye 
have come to know God (γνόντες θεόν): This 
verb denotes ‘‘ to know by ascertaining,” while the 
‘word used in the previous verse (εἰδότες) refers rather 
to the possession of knowledge: ‘‘ Not yourselves 
possessing the knowledge of God (εἰδότες), but after 
having learned of him ζυνόντερ). Or rather (μᾶλλον δὲ) 
is a quasi-correction, for greater clearness and fulness, 
adding also a statement of the divine side of the 
matter, perhaps, as Meyer suggests, in order to 
make their threatened lapse appear more clearly as 
a desertion of God, thus: ‘‘ You are not only for- 
saking what you know, but him who has known 
you, taught you, loved you.” -The statement of 
this knowledge on its divine side, as an outgoing of 
divine interest in them, adds a further element of 
culpability to their retrogade movement. How 
turn ye back again i(réc ἐπιστρέφετε πάλιν) EXpresses 
the Apostle’s surprise and indignation. Again 
having been, for the most part, heathen (and not 
Jews) before their conversion, their religion was 
rudimentary, so “‘again” is it to be, if under the 


170 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


influence of the Judaizers, they go back from 
Christianity to Mosaism. The Apostle assures them | 
that the worship and service to which they are 
going is as truly an example of ‘‘ the weak and beg- 
garly rudiments of the world” (τὰ ἀσθενῆ καὶ πτωχὰ 
στοιχεῖα) as that from which they came. This is 
Paul’s most depreciatory characterization of the 
Mosaic system and yet it is “‘ weak” not as being 
a mere human system, but as being powerless to 
justify (cf. 111. 21; Rom. Vili. 8,---τὸ ἀδύνατον τοῦ 
νόμου); it is “‘ poor” as being unable to confer that 
rich benefit of sonship and peace which is the gift 
of God through faith in Christ. How completely 
Paul puts the heathen and Jewish religions upon 
the same plane is here clearly seen in the force of 
‘‘again,” and in both being called rudiments (the 
former by implication, the latter directly); but it 
is to be carefully noted that it is in respect to their 
powerlessness to justify that he puts them into the 
same category. Paul’s view of the Old Testament 
system, as elsewhere expounded, would render his 
putting them upon the same plane in origin and 
character, utterly impossible. 

Over again (πάλιν ἄνωθεν); The latter of these 
words may have either of three meanings: (1) 
‘‘from above,” its strict, original signification; 
(2) “from the beginning,” and so, (3) “‘ over again.” 
To me (3) seems improbable because we have the 
word ‘‘again” (πάλιν), which suffices for that idea; 


Religious Development under the Law: iv. 10, 171 


(1) gives, in this passage, no proper sense. I there- 
fore prefer (2) so that the two terms together 
express emphatically the idea of going back to the 
‘‘rudiments” again and commencing religious 
development from the beginning. 'The only passage 
where much doubt or importance attaches to the 
meaning of this word (ἄνωθεν) is John iii. 3 “ born 
again” (A. V.),—‘*‘ anew ” (R. V.),—‘‘ from above ” 
(R. V. marg.). It is here most commonly ex- 
plained as meaning “‘from above,” but the wonder 
of Nicodemus was in regard to being born a second 
time from which it is a natural inference that he 
understood the word in the question of Jesus to mean 
‘‘again.” The old interpretation is, in my judg- 
ment, to be preferred. 

10. Ye observe days, and months, and 
seasons, and years.—Many punctuate this sen- 
tence interrogatively (as Tischendorf, Meyer, 
Alford, Lightfoot); others with a period (Westcott 
and Hort, Ellicott). In the former case, verse 10 
continues the surprised and indignant questioning 
of verse 9. In the latter, it introduces positive 
proof of their desire to be enslaved again. Either 
yields a good sense. This observance of days, etc., 
was clearly a Jewish observance. Days would 
naturally refer to Jewish feast or fast days, and 
sabbaths, in respect to which (according to Col. ii. 
16) no one is to judge the Christian, and which are 
a shadow of things to come. Months are com- 


172 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


monly supposed to refer to the new moons (also 
mentioned in Col. ii. 16). 

Others suppose that some particular months of 
the year are meant. The seventh (Tisri) as the 
sabbatic month had a sacred character, (Meyer). 
Seasons (καιρούς) would naturally embrace such 
festal occasions, as Passover, Pentecost and the Feast 
of Booths; while years (ἐνιαυτούς), would doubtless 
refer to the sabbatic years, and perhaps to the year 
of Jubilee (which, however, some maintain had 
long before fallen into abeyance). He charges 
them with taking up the observance of this system 
of sacred times and seasons, not because it is evil in 
itself, but because it marks on their part a retrograde 
movement in religion. In regard to these obsery- 
ances, so far as their merits were concerned, the 
Apostle’s position was conciliatory and his spirit 
that of concession (Rom. xiv. 5-6; Col. ii. 16); but, 
in the present situation, a principle was at stake 
and must not be compromised. He is opposed to 
all participation in these Jewish observances because 
they are regarded as necessary to salvation; they 
thus threaten the sole sufficiency of faith. Com- 
pare his attitude toward circumcision in general, 
(Acts xvi. 3; Gal. vi. 15; I Cor. ix. 20); but, note 
how strenuously he is opposed to it when it is 
sought to be forced upon one (Titus) who would 
have no reason to choose it for himself, and where — 
the claim savored of enforcing it as a necessity to 


The True Christian Position: iv. 12. 175 


salvation. The explanation of Lightfoot, who sup- 
poses a division of the law into spiritual and ritual- 
istic elements, is not in accord with the unity of the. 
law. 

11.1 am afraid of you, lest by any 
means I have bestowed labor upon you in 
vain:—You after I am afraid of (φοβοῦμαι) prob- 
ably designates them as the objects of his anxious 
solicitude. “1 am afraid in regard to you” (so 
Meyer, Ellicott). By many the accusative (ὑμᾶς) 18. 
explained as a case of attraction or assimilation to 
the case of the you inthe following subordinate 
clause (so Winer, Wieseler). The indicative after 
lest (μήπως) denotes his apprehension that it is really 
the fact that he has bestowed his labor in vain 
i. e. without bringing them to permanent Christian. 
life and character. 


III. ExHORTATION TO THE GALATIANS TO RETURN 
TO THE TRUE CHRISTIAN POSITION, 12-20. 


12. I beseech you, brethren, be as I 81}... 
for I am as ye are.—After the censure of the: 
previous verses, the Apostle adopts a more persua- 
sive tone; his language changes from that of dis- 
couragement to that of entreaty and hopefulness in 
regard to their defections from the faith. “ Be- 
come as I am, because I became (se. ἐγενόμην) as you.” 
Because I, who was a Jew by nature and conviction, 
became as a Gentile for your sakes, you should now 


174 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


reciprocate by renouncing your Judaism and com- 
ing to my standing-point. I became as a Gentile 
in order that I might bring you to a state where 
there is neither Jew nor Greek, but where all stand 
above these distinctions in Christ. The ‘‘ becom- 
ing” on Paul’s part is fully described in I Cor. ix. 
20-23. When he says ‘‘ Become as I” he is refer- 
ring to the true Christian position as contrasted 
with narrow and prejudiced national Christianity. 
What he says in no way involves the setting forth 
of himself as a model of perfection. His thought 
is: “1 make this conciliatory and _ persuasive 
appeal on the ground of our friendly relations; 
when I was among you you did me no injustice; 
I may therefore hopefully appeal to you now to 
grant my reasonable and just request?” 

13. Ye did me no wrong: but ye know 
that because of an infirmity of the flesh I 
preached the gospel unto you the first 
time.—‘“‘So far from doing me injustice,” contin- 
ues the Apostle, ‘‘ you sympathized with me in my 
infirmity and patiently bore the trial which my — 
infirmity caused. Nay, you received me with the 
greatest honor and reverence.” These conciliatory 
and persuasive expressions were adapted to secure a 
favorable consideration of his exhortation. The 
word but (δέ) forms the transition to that descrip- 
tion of their kindness which is contrasted with the 
idea of doing him injustice (ἠδικήσατε). The force of 


The True Christian Position: iv. 14 178 


verse 13 depends upon the meaning of the word 
rendered, ‘‘ because. of” (διά); usage strongly 
favors this meaning, 7. 6. by reason of an illness I 
was detained among you when I came and preached 
to you, and from this illness arose a trial for you, 
a care and embarrassment, which, however, you 
kindly bore, even treating me with excessive con- 
sideration. (So Meyer, Ellicott, and Lightfoot). 
Others, (as Olshausen, Ewald) explain this preposi- 
tion as meaning ‘‘ in the experience of ” (ΞΞ ἐν), which 
gives substantially the same sense, though not assign- 
ing his weakness as the cause of his remaining and 
preaching. Others, (as De Wette, Wieseler), explain 
the reference in the infirmity of the flesh, not 
to Paul, but to the Galatians, and translate: ‘‘on 
account of the weakness of your flesh,” a view of the 
passage which does not naturally explain the refer- 
ence in the next verse to the trial (‘‘ temptation ”— 
πειρασμός), Which Paul occasioned the Galatians and 
their patience in bearing it. 

The first time, 7. 6. at his first visit, when he 
established Christianity in Galatia (Acts xvi. 6). 
The second visit is mentioned in Acts xvili. 23. 

14. And that which was a temptation 
to you in my flesh ye despised not, nor 
rejected; but ye received me as an angel 
of God, even as Christ Jesus.—The older 
texts read, “‘My temptation” (πειρασμόν μου): cf. A. 
VY. According to this reading the meaning is, my 


176 ‘The Epistle to the Galatians. 


trial (the trial which God sent upon me) you did 
not despise nor disdainfully reject; 7. 6. you were 
not indifferent to my feeble condition and did not 
reject me in consequence of it. But the reading, 
“your temptation” (πειρασμὸν ὑμῶν) is much better 
supported (A Β Ὁ F α W& Copt. Vulg. It.), ac- 
cording to which the meaning is: But your proof 
or trial (viz. that which was occasioned by my in- 
firmity), you did not reject, or refuse to submit to. 
On the contrary you bore the test which my condi- 
tion imposed. What this sickness was we do not 
know. The terms despised and rejected 
(ἐξουθενήσατε οὐδὲ ἐξεπτύσατε) are Strong words hardly ap- 
propriate to the object, temptation, especially 
the latter verb; but they express in a hyperbolic 
way the idea of rejection in order to point the con- 
trast with their actual reception of him as an angel, 
and even as Christ himself—in whose name he had 
come,—equally emphatic statements of their con- 
duct, and together reflecting the enthusiastic but 
mercurial character of the Galatians. 

15. Where then is that gratulation of 
yourselves ? for I bear you witness, that, 
if possible, ye would have plucked out 
your eyes and given them to me.—The 
meaning of the question, Where then etc., prob- 
ably is: Where then is your felicitation of your- 
selves; your self-congratulation and joy in my la- 
bors? It is nowhere. What a change has come 


The True Christian Position: iv. 16. 177 


over you! How different now your attitude and 
feeling toward me! The word for (γάρ) refers to 
the gratulation mentioned. It was a great self- 
gratulation for you were so devoted that you would 
have given me your very eyes. Many suppose that 
the allusion implies that Paul had some malady of 
the eyes, a defect which the Galatians would, 
if possible, have been willing to supply, but 
he is probably merely using a popular hyper- 
bole. 

16. So then am I become your enemy, 
because I tell you the truth?—He here 
abruptly introduces a question which presents the 
consequence (ώστε) of that cooling of their ardor 
which is alluded to in ver. 15. Your joy and satis- 
faction in my labors are no more. Your devotion ig 
gone. Has it accordingly come to this, that I have 
become your enemy because I spoke the truth to 
you? Your enemy (ἐχθρὸς ὑμῶν) is probably 
active in force; ‘‘ hostile to you,” though, of course, 
mutual hostility is involved. The time when he 
thinks of himself as having become their enemy is 
not that at which the Epistle was read (so Jerome, 
Luther), for that was yet future; nor that of the 
first visit (for then he experienced only the regard 
spoken of above), but that of the second visit, when 
the seeds of Judaism had, no doubt, already been 
sown, and the germs of the future troubles planted. 


The solemn affirmations of i. 9 and vy. 3 probably 
12 


178 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


refer to reproofs of the Galatians by Paul while 
with them, during the second visit. 

17. They zealously seek you in no 
good way; nay, they desire to shut you 
out, that ye may seek them.—The mention 
of a feeling of hostility between themselves and him, 
calls to his mind the persons to whom he had be- 
come hostile, that is, the Jewish extremists, and 
the affirmation of verse 17 refers to them. They 
are zealous for you; 7. 6. they interest themselves to 
draw you over to their side; in no good way 
(οὐ καλῶς) ὃ. 6. IN ἃ party spirit, not in a way to pro- 
mote your true good. Their proselytism proceeds 
from narrow conceptions of Christianity and cannot 
issue in a real benefit to you. Nay, they desire 
to shut you out (ἐκκλεῖσαι ὑμᾶς θέλουσιν), that ye 
may seek them, 7. 6. in order that you may zeal- 
ously seek (pay court t0, iva αὐτοὺς ζηλοῦτε) them. 
Shut you out from what? Many answers have 
been given: (a) From Paul and from communion 
with him (Winer, Bengel, Olshausen); (6) from the 
whole body of Christians (Flatt); (¢) from all Chris- 
tians thinking differently (Schott); (d) from true 
knowledge (Chrysostom, Theophylact); (e) from 
Christian freedom (Erasmus); (77) from Christ and 
confidence in him (Luther); (g) from the kingdom 
of truth (Matthies); (Ὁ) from the kingdom of 
heaven (Wieseler); (ὃ from salvation by faith 

(Matthias); (7) from other teachers, who do not be- 


The True Christian Position: ivy. 18. 179 


long to their way of thinking, (Meyer, Ellicott). 
This is the preferable view as shown by the following 
clause, which states the aim of this ‘‘ shutting out.” 
The purpose of the Judaizing sectaries is, that they 
may cut the Galatians off from that larger Christian 
fellowship which Paul advocates and represents, and 
thus oblige them to cling zealously to themselves 
(the Judaizers). ‘‘ They wish to make you exclu- 
sive,” says the Apostle, ‘‘so as to attach you to them- 
selves.” It should be noticed that the telic con- 
junction that (ia), is here used with the indicative, 
as in I Cor. iv. 6, an unclassical construction, (so 
explained by most critics, including Lightfoot, 
Ellicott, Winer, Olshausen, Wieseler). Meyer, 
however, contends that wa here is local, meaning 
‘‘where,” and referring to the Jewish Christian 
sphere. 

18. But it is good to be zealously 
sought in a good matter at all times, and 
not only when I am present with you.— 
The Apostle now assures his readers that he does 
not object to their being zealously sought in 
itself. But the instance in question is a case of 
perverted zeal. ‘‘It is good to be zealously sought, 
to have one’s favor courted in a good way or cause, 
but they are not courting it in this way. It is well 
that this zeal should be always operative in this 
good way and not merely when I am with you.” 
The words at all times, and not only when, 


180 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


etc., seem to mean: ‘‘I could wish you to be always 
the object of zealous attention from others; I can- 
not always be with you to direct your religious 
life, but I greatly desire that this zeal of others for 
you be sincere and be directed not by party-spirit 
but by an interest in your spiritual growth.” 

19. My little children, of whom I am 
again in travail until Christ be formed in 
you.—Paul now ends his rebuke in a strain of 
tenderness, and with a singularly complex meta- 
phor, in which he not only represents himself as the 
mother bringing forth the child (I am again in 
travail, etc.), but instead of carrying out that 
violent figure, adds to its confusion by speaking, not ᾿ 
of their being born, but of Christ as being formed 
within them. Practically what he means is, that it 
seems as if he must convert them over again to 
Christ, so sadly have they fallen away. 

20. Yea, I could wish to be present 
with you now, and to change my voice; 
for I am perplexed about you.—But (yea, 
6:)—speaking of being present with you (v. 18),—I 
could wish (if such a thing were possible), to be 
present with you. I could wish (ἤθελον) is the 
apodosis (without the classical av) corresponding to 
an implied protasis, and denoting a conclusion whose 
fulfillment is out of the question, cf. Rom. ix. 3. 
To change my voice means, to adopt a more 
winsome manner of dealing with your apostasy 


An Allegorical Illustration from the Law : iv, 21.181 


which the Apostle thinks, if he were among them, 
might prove effectual. He could wish this because 
he is in perplexity about them as to whether he has 
dealt with them in the wisest and most effectual 
way, and he would gladly make every possible effort. 


IV. A NARRATIVE FROM THE LAW ITSELF MAY 
BE ALLEGORICALLY APPLIED SO AS TO ILLUS- 
TRATE THE TRUTH THAT THOSE WHO AD- 
HERE TO THE LAW ARE IN BONDAGE, 

21-v. 1. 


These verses should first be observed in their con- 
nection. The passage is an argumentum ad homi- 
nem. In its form it would be harmonious with 
modes of handling the Old Testament familiar and 
valid with those to whom it is addressed. 

21. Tell me, ye that desire to be under 
the law, do ye not hear the law? He here 
appeals to the devotees of the law to take a lesson 
out of the law. 

22. For it is written, that Abraham 
had two sons, one by the handmaid, and 
one by the freewoman. This verse states the 
case: Abraham had two sons, who, from the cir- 
cumstances of their birth, may be contemplated as 
representing two principles, dondage and freedom. 

23. Howbeit the son by the handmaid 
is born after the flesh; but the son by the 
freewoman is born through promise.—He 


182 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


next states the grownd of this application of the 
matter. The one, as being the son of a bond- 
woman, is a child after the flesh (κατὰ σάρκα), and 
represents the earthly and carnal; while the othor 
child, being born in fulfillment of a divine promisc 
(δι ἐπαγγελίας), stands in relation to that which is 
higher and spiritual. 

24. Which things contain an allegory : 
for these women are two covenants; one 
from mount Sinai, bearing children unto 
bondage, which is Hagar.—The allegorical 
application is now made: The character of these 
two, as connected with their birth, fitly represents 
the respective principles of the two covenants, the 
old and the new; descent in Hagar’s line symbolizes 
the bondage and the carnal element in the Old Tes- 
tament system, while descent from Sarah expresses 
promise, freedom, and typifies spiritual life. The 
former stands for the Sinai covenant. | 

25. Now this Hagar is mount Sinai in 
Arabia, and answereth to the Jerusalem > 
that now is: for she is in bondage with 
her children.—In this verse a local consideration 
is thrown in which makes his allegory the more ap- 
propriate: * “‘I may fitly represent the Sinai-covenant 


* This explanation proceeds upon my preference for the 
text which is followed by the marginal translation of the 
R. V., and which is discussed a little further on. Cf. the 
paraphrase and the fuller note on ver. 25, p. 187, seq. 


An Allegorical Lllustration from the Law: iv. 25, 183 


by Hagar, because Sinai is situated in Arabia, the 
land of Hagar’s descendants. Or, to liken it to 
something else which stands for the old covenant as 
truly as Sinai does, it corresponds to the Jerusalem 
of Judaism, the earthly and temporal city, which is 
the center of the old dispensation, whose children 
(the Jews still under the law) are in a state of bond- 
age. But there is. another Jerusalem, a heavenly 
city, the city of God, the spiritual commonwealth 
whose law is freedom, that is, Christianity, to 
which the promise looked forward. In this city the 
joyous promises to the desolate are realized, and 
here we find the inheritance to which the ancient 
gracious covenant with Abraham respecting Isaac 
looked forward (27-30). Apart from the allegorical 
form, what is the real thought of the passage ? 
Simply this: The characteristic quality and effect 
of the two covenants, externality and bondage on 
the one hand, spirituality and freedom on the 
other, are represented and illustrated by the natural 
relations of bondage and freedom in the case of the 
two women, Hagar and Sarah, and in the case of 
their descendants. Apart from the allegorical form 
of the argument (which is very sparingly used by 
Paul), we have here simply the use of the differing 
relations of these two women to Abraham, and the 
historic relations of the two lines of descent, to 
illustrate the respective principles of the two coy- 
enants. The form of thought is Rabbinic as in the 


184 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


case of the argument upon the words ‘‘ seed” and 
‘seeds ” (iii. 16), and in the application of the 
passage “‘ Thou shalt not muzzle the ox,” ete. (1 
Cor. ix. 9) to Christian teachers; but, apart from 
this, the parallel instituted is ingenious and appro- 
priate, and this fact is all that.is essential in the 
case. T'wo points should be remembered: (1) How 
sparingly and temperately Paul uses the allegorical 
method, a remarkable fact when his strict Pharisaic 
training is considered; and (2) that there is no case, 
in which he uses the allegorical form of argument, 
where, if the form were dropped, a forcible and 
valid argument could not still be derived and devel- 
oped from the relations which the allegory contem- 
plates. It was a keen and true observation of 
Luther that Paul’s allegorical arguments were the 
painting of the house after it had been built. 

These verses may now be considered more in de- 
tail. (21) Do ye not hear the law (τὸν νόμον οὐκ 
ἀκούετε ;), 15 generally understood to mean: ‘‘ Will you 
not listen to the law, attend to a lesson out of your 
venerated law? ” ‘The present tense rather favors 
the interpretation: ‘‘Do you not hear the law 
read in your synagogue service?” (So Usteri, 
Meyer, Ellicott). The appeal is to those who are 
inclined to hold the view that the Mosaic law is 
binding on Christians. Ver. 22 refers to no single 
passage, but to the history recorded in Genesis 
Chs. xvi. and xxi. 


An Allegorical Illustration from the Law : iv.(23)185 


23. The emphasis is laid upon the two sets of 
contrasted terms handmaid and free woman, 
after the flesh, and through promise; the 
first pair of terms setting forth the principles of 
bondage and freedom which the Apostle is to apply 
to the two covenants; and the second pair expressing, 
on the one hand, the carnal, outward and tempo- 
rary relations of Hagar and her son Ishmael and his 
descendants, as connected with Abraham, and on 
the other hand, the spiritual and permanent rela- 
tions symbolized in the birth of Isaac according toa 
divine promise,—relations which are paralleled in 
the spiritual system of Christianity, which is the 
ideal fulfillment of these ancient promises and cove- 
nants. The word “through” (διά), ascribes the 
birth of Isaac to the agency of the promise, in the 
sense that it was due to that divine operation 
which lay behind the promise as the guaranty of 
its fulfillment. 

(24) Which things (= quippe quae) contain 
an allegory (or, are spoken allegorically). 

Two general views are commonly taken of this 
assertion :— 

I. Paul meant that the facts under consideration 
could be treated allegorically, though not necessarily 
affirming that they contained an allegory in the pur- 
pose of the writer. On this view, the allegory is 
found only in Paul’s own use and application of the 
_ history (so Lightfoot). 


186 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


II. He meant that this history contained an 
allegorical meaning in addition to the historical; 
that the facts narrated concerning the persons here 
referred to, contained, in the thought of the writer, 
or, in the purpose of divine providence, a hidden, 
spiritual sense which referred to the nature and re- 
lations of the two covenants (so Chrysostom, Weiss, 
Ellicott). 

There is, in any case, no good reason to suppose 
that the Apostle here set aside the historical sense 
and replaced it by the allegorical meaning; (cf, 
however, I Cor. ix. 9,10, where if πάντως mean 
“altogether” (R. V.) and not ‘ certainly,” the his- 
torical sense seems to be set aside). ‘The second 
explanation is more probably correct in that form of 
it which holds, not that it was the conscious pur- 
pose of the writer to compose an allegory when 
writing the Genesis narratives (as the A. V. might 
imply by rendering: ‘‘which things are an alle- 
gory ”); but that there was, in the divine thought, 
a typical and mystical meaning in this history which 
was revealed and fulfilled in the gospel. 

This interpretation seems probable on two 
grounds: (a) It is natural to expect that Paul would 
not be wholly free from the Rabbinic habits of 
thought in which he had been trained, prominent 
among which was the allegorical method of inter- 
pretation which sought a hidden ‘sense, a spiritual 
meaning, in the historical narratives of the Old 


An Allegorical Illustration from the Law: iv. 25, 185 


Testament, not merely as being suggested or typi- 
fied by them, but as being contained in them and as 
intended by the writers, or, at any rate, by the 
divine mind. (0) Paul’s actual use, in a few other 
clear instances, (I Cor. ix. 9, 10; Gal. ili, 16 and 
II Cor. iii. 13, 14)-of allegorical interpretations, 
-where it can hardly be doubted that he finds the fig- 
urative meaning in the passages, and does not 
merely develop it from them by way of application 
or illustration, renders the supposition that he does 
so in this case also extremely probable. 

(25),The word Hagar (‘Ayap) is omitted by δὲ 
C F α Aeth., Armen., Vulg., Goth. and by the 
Latin Fathers; deleted by Tischendorf, Lightfoot, 
Lachmann, margin of R. V., Wieseler; and brack- 
eted by Westcott and Hort. It is sustained by A. 
Β Κα 1, Ρ, the Cursive Mss., Chrysostom, 
Meyer, T. R., A. V., R. V. If retained, the mean- 
ing is: “ὙΠΟ name Hagar is applied to Mount 
Sinai, and this fact establishes the connection Hl 
tween the bondwoman Hagar and Mount Sinai as 
the symbol of the Old Testament.” If it is 
omitted, the sense would be: ‘‘ Mount Sinai is in 
Arabia, the land of Hagar’s descendants.” The 
allegorizing element is larger in the former reading 
and the connection more artificial. Apart from the 
external evidence, it appears to me that the slight 
modification of the text so as to suggest an alle- 
gorical connection of thought by affirming the iden- 


188 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


tity of the names Hagar and Sinai can be more 
easily supposed, than can the omission of this word, 
if originally written; also, that it is unlikely that 
Paul would think of, or even know, such a fact as 
that in Arabia Mount Sinai was called by a name | 
closely resembling ‘‘ Hagar.” This view introduces 
an element which is generally felt to be more artifi- 
cial and extraneous. ‘The search for a name sound- 
ing like Hagar as an appellation for Mount Sinai 
has not been clearly successful. (See Meyer a 
loco, and Lightfoot’s Excursus on the point). The 
evidence is indeed closely balanced, but I believe 
that, on the whole, the probability is against the 
reading of "Ayap here. 

And now, after establishing a connection between 
Arabia, the land of the bondwoman’s descendants, 
and Sinai, the same purpose is further subserved by 
joining Sinai and J erusalem. Sinai corresponds to 
Jerusalem; both alike are symbols of the old cove- 
nant. ‘The allegorical correlative of Hagar and her 
country is Sinai, but since Sinai and Jerusalem sig- 
nify the same, Jerusalem may, with equal propriety, 
take the place of Sinai. If ‘‘ Hagar” is read in ver. 
25, then that name (note the neuter τὸ "Ayap, as de- 
noting the name and not the person Hagar) is the 
subject of the verb ‘‘ answereth ” (συνστοιχεῖ); but if 
not, then the subject is ‘‘ Sinai” considered as the 
symbol of the Old Testament system. But ‘‘ Jeru- 
salem,” regarded in this same relation, is probably 


An Allegorical Lllustration from the Law: iv. 26.189 


the subject of ‘“‘is in bondage” (δουλεύει) in either 
case. At this point the figure of Jerusalem as a 
mother of children creeps in, so that Jerusalem can 
be said to be in bondage with her children. The 
figure becomes explicit in verse 26. The simple 
sense here is that the Old Testament system is a 
system of bondage, as opposed to the freedom of the 
gospel, because the law lays upon men burdens of 
obligation which by reason of sin and weakness 
they cannot lift, and then the law shuts them up in 
ward until the grace of God, which is the principle 
of the gospel, sets them free. ‘The bondage is the 
result of the guilt which the law can charge upon 
man, but from which it cannot deliver him. 

26. But the Jerusalem that is above is 
free, which is our mother.—The contrast to 
the Old Testament system in this respect, to this 
present earthly Jerusalem, (ἡ viv Ἱερουσαλήμ) is the 


upper Jerusalem, the spiritual Jerusalem, (ἡ ἄνω ‘Iep.) | 


the city and commonwealth of God whose principle 
is freedom and which is the mother of whom we 
believers, the children of promise, are born. Note 
then, the two correlative sets of terms and ideas. 
They are, on the one side: Hagar, a bondwoman; 
Ishmael, a son born in mere carnal relatiofs; his de- 
scendants inhabiting a land of bondage. To this 
series of facts, correspond the character and effects 
of the Old Testament system, which shuts sinners 
up in bondage. On the other side: Sarah, who 


190 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


bears a child of promise, and who, with her descend- 
ants, illustrates the principles of the kingdom of 
God which sets men free from their sins; to which 
kingdom we belong. The analogy is not only in- 
genious, but striking and appropriate. 

27. For itis written Rejoice, thou bar- 
ren that bearest not; 

Break forth and cry, thou that travail- 
est not: 

For more are the children of the deso- 
late than of her which hath the husband. 
—The figure of the mother (Jerusalem) who had 
been prefigured by Sarah, once childless, but later 
the glad mother of a child of promise, suggests an 

| Old Testament passage where the same figure had 
| been applied to Jerusalem the holy city in its deso- 
lation during the exile (Isa. liv. 1). In the exile, 
the forsaken city is congratulated in hope of the re- 
turn of her people and of renewed prosperity. This 
language is now applied to the spiritual Jerusalem 
whose children (the faithful) shall. be numerous, 
though descended from the long childless Sarah. 
The passage is at least indirectly Messianic in the 
/Old Testament, inasmuch as the theocratic Jerusa- 
Vicia is a type of the ‘“‘upper Jerusalem.” The 
application of the figure is not to be forced beyond 
this limit. The woman that ‘‘ hath the husband” 
1s the theocracy; the ‘‘ barren ” one is the Christian 
church, but these terms are applied in keeping 


An Allegorical Illustration from the Law: iv. 28.191 


with the Old Testament sense of the passage and 
are not to be forced rigidly through in the applica- 
tion. 

28. Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, 
are children of promise.—This verse contains 
the application of the allegory to the Apostle’s 
practical purpose. He declares: ‘‘ You Christians 
belong to this free lineage which stands in the line 
of promise connected with Isaac.” Here it is seen 
how the whole force of his ‘‘ allegory ” bears upon 
the Judaizers. ‘‘ When you go over to the law again 
and cling to it, it is as if you were determined to 
prove yourselves Hagar’s descendants, and so to give 
up your true lineage and privileges? As Isaac 
(κατὰ Ἰσαάκ), refers to the promise connected with his 
birth, a promise which extends itself to, and is ful- 
filled in, all believers. Faith is that which assures 
to us the inheritance of the promises. 

29. But as then he that was born after 
the flesh persecuted him that was born 
after the Spirit, even so it is now.—The 
‘* persecution ” of Isaac by Ishmael is explained in 
two ways: (1) The reference is to Gen. xxi. 9, 
where on the feast day when Isaac was weaned, it is 
said that Sarah saw Ishmael “‘mocking” (R. V. 
text) or “laughing” (margin). The Hebrew verb 


meaning to laugh (PM¥), does sometimes mean _ 


‘to laugh contemptuously; ” 7. 6. to mock, and is 


generally so understood in that passage. This in- | 


᾿ 


‘4 


192 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


terpretation would harmonize with the sequel where 
Hagar and her son are sent away for this act of 
Ishmael. But this ‘‘ mocking” does not amount 
to ‘‘ persecution.” Another explanation, somewhat 
different, but still resting on Gen. xxi. 9, is some- 
times given: This act of mocking is typical of the 
hostile relations of the descendants of Hagar to 
Israel (Ps. lxxxili. 7; I Chron. v. 10, 19). It is very 
probable that Paul contemplates the personal rela- 
tions of the two sons as typical of the relations of 
their descendants, but it still remains the sons per- 
sonally to which this language applies. The LXX. 
understood the original word here (IT$'D) to mean 
‘‘ laughing,” ‘‘ playing,” and rendered ‘playing 
with Isaac her son” (παίζοντα x. τ, λ.). (2) The refer- 
ence is to the Jewish tradition which was developed 
on the basis of Gen. xxi. 9, according to which Isaac 
was tormented by his half-brother. Meyer quotes 
an example of this tradition: ‘‘ Ishmael said to 
Isaac, Let us go and see our portion in the field; 
and Ishmael carried the bow and arrows, and shot 
at Isaac, and acted as though he were in sport.” 
This is doubtless what formed the basis of Paul’s 
statement, but, as stated above, these relations are 
contemplated as representative. So it is now, 
\ that is, so now the Jews (Christians who will still 
be Jews, Judaizers), who still cling to the bondage 
‘system, persecute the adherents of Christianity. 
Others (as Meyer) refer this persecution to the hard- 


An Allegorical Illustration from the Law: iv. 30. 193 


ships which the Christians suffered from the literal 
Jews. In principle, both would be included. 

30. Howbeit what saith the scripture? 
Cast out the handmaid and her son: for 
the son of the handmaid shall not inherit 
with the son of the freewoman.—tThe re- 
sult of these hostile relations is now depicted. As 
the mocking son of the bondwoman was cast out 
of the family to wander forsaken, so shall the Jew- 
ish opposition to the spiritual kingdom of God be 
terminated by God’s providential judgment. The 
Scripture cited is the language of Sarah, (Gen. xxi. 
10), confirmed by the command of God in verse 12. 

31. Wherefore, brethren, we are not 
children of a handmaid, but of the free- 
woman.—tThis is the practical conclusion and 
application of the whole allegory. As the bond- 
woman was cast out, so is the Jewish system, which 
she typified, set aside. We belong to a different 
and higher lineage and order. This statement 
clearly involves the obligation to be devoted to the 
Christian system and not longer to confuse it with 
that of the law from which the readers, as Chris- 


tians, are free. 
13 


ANALYSIS AND PARAPHRASE OF 
CHAPTER V. 


1. The Futility of Seeking Justification by Legal 
Works, 2-12.—To receive circumcision as being 
necessary to salvation is a virtual renunciation of 
Christ (2). When one submits to this rite as a 
condition of justification, he thereby commits him- 
self to the legal method, and, by the very meaning 
of his act, is bound to do all that the law requires 
and must do this, if he is to be saved (3). You 
Galatians, in so doing, are cutting your life loose 
from Christ by renouncing the faith-principle of sal- 
vation and are already turned away from God’s free 
grace in the attempt to achieve your own salvation 
by works of merit (4). I assure you of your great 
error’ and certain failure, for we who hold to the 
opposite course base all our hope upon the grace in 
which we trust (5); and rightly so, for, with refer- 
ence to the attainment of salvation, the question 


whether one is circumcised or not, is of noimpor- _ 


tance; the only essential condition being a faith 
which gives evidence of its vital power by love (6). 
194 


Analysis and Paraphrase of Chapter V. 198 


You were making good progress in Christian life 
and knowledge; who has checked you in this and 
led you into such disloyalty to the truth? Their 
dissuasion of you from the right path is not in line 
with God’s call. This wrong tendency is ,indeed 
serious, for, though the defection be limited, it will 
spread like leaven (7-8). I have good hope, how- 


τς ever, that you Galatians as a whole will not be led 


astray by this error, but will continue faithful to 
my instructions; but the leader in this sedition will 
receive a heavy chastisement (10). As for the accu- 
sation of the Judaizers that I too, upon occasion, 
preach circumcision, it involves an absurdity; they 
would not continue to persecute me if I were not in 
antagonism to them; if their accusation were true, 
there would no longer be any offence to the Jews 
from my preaching of the cross; but the fact that 
my work still arouses Jewish opposition, proves 
their charge untrue. These extremists who pervert 
your faith and hinder your Christian growth,—who 
think so much of circumcision—should have it to 
the point of mutilation! (11, 12). 

2. The right use of Christian freedom, 138-15.— 
I speak thus vehemently, for you, Christian 
brethren, were destined (in your divine call) for the 
enjoyment of freedom from these legal require- 
ments; but this freedom does not mean lawlessness, 
but requires a loving service to others; for love to 
one’s fellows as to himself is the sum of the law for 


1906 Analysis and Paraphrase of Chapter V. 


which you profess so much zeal, (13, 14). But if, 
instead of living the life of love, you continue in 
disputes, such as that now prevailing, you will end 
in the utter destruction of your Christian fellow- 
ship (15). 


3. The Spiritual and the Carnal life contrasted, 
16-26.—My advice is: Live under the power of the 
Spirit and, in so doing, you will find the true safe- 
guard against the evils of which I warn you (16). 
For there is a sharp conflict in Christian men between 
the inspiration of the Spirit and the sinful impulses 
which operate to prevent your doing what your 
conscience would prompt (17). But if you keep 
your lives under the guidance of the Spirit you shall 
have the victory over evil, because you will not then 
be under that condemnation and bondage which 
they experience who live under the law, but will. 
enjoy the sense of freedom and pardon which the 
Spirit imparts (18). Now by considering the sins 
which spring from carnal impulse, you may see how 
wholly incompatible they are with participation in 
the kingdom of God (19-21), and by contemplating 
the fruit in human life of the Spirit’s guidance, it 
is equally seen that those who produce it cannot be 
under the bondage of sin and the sentence of the 
law, since those virtues are the ideal requirements 
of all law (22, 23). Now Christians have put to 
death the impulses which lead to the works of the 


ᾧ 


Analysis and Paraphrase of Chapter V. 197 


flesh (24). If, then, we have our life in the power 
of the Spirit and not of the flesh, let our outward 
action be ruled by the true power of Christian liv- 
ing—that of the Spirit; let us not act as if we were 
ruled by the contrary and inconsistent principle 
which excites factious boasting leading to the chal- 
lenging of one another to conflicts and to jealous 
retaliation (25, 26). 


CHAPTER V. 


1. With freedom did Christ set us free: 
stand fast therefore, and be not entangled 
in a yoke of bondage. This verse logically 
belongs in connection with the preceding section. 
The text is well nigh hopelessly undetermined and 
the precise force intended not certain, whichever 
reading is chosen.* ‘The general sense, however, 
cannot be in doubt. ‘‘ Ye Christians are no longer 


* For an account of the various readings in the original 
text, see Lightfoot’s Excursus in his Commentary, page 
200 seg. The preferred reading (so ὃὲ A,B. CD, οἵ al.) 
is: TH ἐλευθερία ἡμᾶς Xp. ἦλ., (so Westcott and Hort, Meyer, 
Tischendorf). If the relative is thus omitted, τῇ ἔλευθερία 
is to be joined with the verb, ἠλευθέρωσεν, and the meaning 
is either: “‘ With freedom did Christ set us free:” ὁ. 6. Kis. 


did Christ set us free,” ἡ. 6. is a dative commodi, (so R. V. 
margin, Lightfoot, [in case the text is to be so written] 
Meyer). All things considered, this last meaning seems to 
be the most natural sense of the passage, though by no 
means free from difficulty and objection. If iis read (80. 
Lightfoot, Ellicott), then τῇ ἐλευθερία, may be connected 
either with what precedes (Lightfoot) and a period placed 


198 


«ἢ τὴ. 
a dative of means (so R. V. text); or: ‘‘For freedony Κ 


D> 
2 


Cy 


No Justification by Legal Works: v.2. 199 


under the guilt and curse of the law. Make the 
most of the fact and stand boldly forth as the rep- 
resentatives of the liberty from sin which is yours,” 
is the Apostle’s meaning. 


Il. THE FUTILITY OF SEEKING JUSTIFICATION BY 
LEGAL WoRKS, 2-12. 


2. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that, if 
ye receive circumcision, Christ will pro- 
fit you nothing.—As a reason for his exhortation 
Paul now asserts the mutually exclusive character 
of the systems of law and grace. If one commits 
himself to the law-system by circumcision, he can- 
not be, at the same time, an adherent of the grace- 
system. One cannot hold these contradictory 
opposites in respect to the mode of justification and 
the conditions of salvation, at the same time. 
Paul will sharply set before them the alternative. 
He will present this alternative sharply to every 
person by the use of Behold in a singular 


form (ise) and by appealing to them individ- 


after ἡλευθέρωσεν, or with στήκετε (A. V. Ellicott); a con- 
struction which would yield two possible meanings (a) 
== ἐν τῇ ἐλευθ. (A. V.), or (Ὁ) τῇ ἐλευθ. might be dative of re- 
spect, quod attinet ad libertatem (Ellicott), and 7 in that case 
can be taken either instrumentally (A. V.) ‘‘ wherewith: ”’ 
or as dative commodi (Ellicott) ‘‘for which Christ hath 
made us free.”’ 


200 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


ually (παντὶ ἀνθρώπῳ, ver. 3). He introduces his 
own name to add to his warning the solemn em- 
phasis of his Apostolic authority. His argu- 
ment is: ‘‘If you become circumcised then you 
deliberately commit yourselves to the law-system 
and renounce the benefits of the gracious sys- 
tem; you are then seeking salvation on your own 
merits, a proceeding which, by its very nature, 
shuts you out from the acceptance of God’s grace 
by faith.” His meaning cannot be that circumci- 
sion in itself is a barrier to Christian salvation, for 
neither circumcision nor uncircumcision, is any- 
thing in itself (v. 6; vi. 15), from the point of view 
of Christian salvation. On the contrary, the mean- 
ing is: “‘If you by circumcision espouse the old 
system as necessary to salvation,’—as the whole 
course of the argument shows. 

3. Yea, I testify again to every man 
that receiveth circumcision, that heis a 


debtor to do the whole law.—“ Yea (δὴ in 


that case,” continues the Apostle, ‘‘so far will you 
be from receiving profit of Christ that you will find 
yourselves under all the burdens of debt which the 
law imposes.” Again probably refers back to sim- 
ilar warnings given them when he visited them. 
To every person who thus chooses the law-method, 
he again bears testimony that such a one is a debtor 
to keep the whole law. ‘The law is a unit, and it is 
vain to suppose that any one of its requirements (as 


iin FS ae 
“alg ee ee a 
ag Se ee = 


No Justification by Legal Works: y. 4. 201 


circumcision) is necessary to salvation, and not all. 
He will not succeed in attaining justification on the 
legal basis, unless he attain complete obedience. 
If they will appeal from Christ to Moses, to Moses 
they shall go. | 

4. Ye are severed from Christ, ye who 
would be justified by the law; ye are 
fallen away from grace:—Severed from 
(κατηργήθητε ἀπὸ Xp.)—lit. ““ destroyed or made nothing 
from,” a constructio pregnans (= καταργεῖσθαι καὶ χωρίζ- 
ecu ἀπό. See also Rom, vii: 2-6 where the dissolu- 
tion of the relation of the Christian to the law is 
referred to. The meaning is: ‘“‘ Ye are wholly separ- 
ated from Christ ye who are such as (οἵτινες) to be 
justified by the law. The present tense, ‘‘ receiveth 
circumcision,” v. 8, and ‘‘ are justified, (R. V. 
“would be justified ”) (περιτεμνομένω, δικαιοῦσθε) refer to 
the effort now making by the Judaizers to have 
recourse to the law-principle in seeking salvation. 
Ye are fallen away from grace, lit. ‘ye fell 
out from grace,” (τῆς χάριτος ἐξεπέσατε). The past 
tense (Aorist) is used in reference to the time 
when they committed themselves to the effort 
which they are now making, 7. e. by appealing to 
the law they adopt the principle of salvation by 
works instead of salvation by grace. They have 
thus fallen away from the plane of grace down 
upon the debit and credit basis where they find 
themselves powerless to pay their obligations. 


202 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


Paul here speaks as if this desertion of Christ 
were an accomplished fact, but other expressions 
show that he was not yet without hope of reclatm- 
ing these misguided Galatians. The completed 
lapse seems to have been logically rather than actu- 
ally accomplished. Their position that circumci- 
sion was necessary to salvation had not yet led them 
to perceive that this position involved the giving up 
of Christ as Saviour. Paul’s purpose was to warn 
them by pointing out the inevitable consequence to 
which this position must lead. Already their atti- 
tude logically separated them from Christ; it had 
not actually done so in most cases; certainly not 
consciously to themselves. 

5. For we through the Spirit by faith 
wait for the hope of righteousness.—This 
verse and the next introduce the Christian princi- 
ple by way of contrast to the law-principle and thus 
confirm the mutual exclusiveness of the two. ‘‘ For 
we, on our part, by the (Holy) Spirit (which we 
received through the hearing of faith, ili. 2) eagerly 
expect the hope of righteousness as the result of 
faith.” Here are presented two ideas regarding the 
mode of salvation: (a) It is through the agency of 
the Spirit; (2) It is from faith, as the condition, on 
man’s part, of apprehending the grace offered. 

The expression: We wait for the hope of 
righteousness, points forward to the completed 
salvation in the future life. The hope of righteous- 


No Justification by Legal Works: v. θ. 208 


ness (ἐλπίδα δικαιοσύνη) probably. means: The hope 
of being declared righteous at the last judg- 
_ ment. It is thus the hope which terminates upon 
and is fulfilled in, the declared acceptance with 
God, (i. 6. δικαιοσύνης, genitive of the object). Others 
interpret thus: We await the hope (the fulfillment 
of the hope) which springs from and is warranted 
by our justification thus making δικ. subjective geni- 
tive. ᾿ 

6. For in Christ Jesus neither circum- 
cision availeth anything, nor uncircum- 
cision ; but faith working through love.— 
This statement is confirmatory (γάρ) of the principle 
that the hope of righteousness is born of faith and 
based upon grace. An outward rite like circumci- 
sion counts for nothing in itself in God’s judgment, 
nor can it asasymbol of attachment to the law, 
have saving significance, because the law itself is ren- 
dered powerless to save by the flesh (Rom. viii. 3). 
Hence this door of hope is shut; there remains only 
the way of faith. ‘‘ But in saying faith,” says Paul, 
“7 mean anactive and energetic faith.’* This pas- 
sage shows how far Paul is from employing faith 
in the sense of dead and inactive belief,—the mean- 
ing of the term against which James inveighs (Jas. 


cht ginal een ee pees ot Se δα ῸΣ Κη ἘΞ Στ ρον τι πα πυΉτττιττ 


* ᾿Ενεργουμένη is middle, not passive, and active in force 
(as always in the New Testament; 6. 9. 1 Cor. 1. ὍΣ 
Thess. ii. 15). 


204 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


ii. 14-26). Faith is an energetic principle which 
is active in the sphere of love; ὦ. e. which leads 
to good works in the sense in which James com- 
mends them. Vv. 7-9 contain a warning to the Ga- 
latian Christians against the Judaizers; 10-12, a 
severe censure of those who have led them astray. © 

7. Ye were running well; who did 
hinder you that ye should not obey the 
truth ?—Ye were running well, ὁ. ¢., grow- 
ing and prospering in the Christian life. Who did 
hinder, etc., (ric ὑμᾶς ἐνέκοψεν), is the rhetorical ques- 
tion expressing surprise. Some one has impeded 
you in your course of obeying the truth. By 
the truth here is meant the doctrine of the sole 
saving efficacy of faith. 

8. This persuasion came not of him > 
that calleth you.—The word rendered persua- 
sion. here (πεισμονή) is apparently chosen with refer- 
ence to the verb meaning to obey (πείθεσθαι) in the 
previous verse, thus making a paronomasia. The 
meaning seems to be: ‘‘This dissuasion (active) 
from the truth of the gospel emanates not from him 
who calls you, 7. 6., from God. It is hostile to the 
divine purpose and requirement for your Christian 
lives.” Many understand ‘‘ persuasion” in a pas- 
sive sense: ‘‘the compliance which you have ac- 
corded to these teachers,” but that meaning does 
not seem to agree so well with the phrase, of him 
that calleth you. Still others render, “‘ credu- 


No Justification by Legal Works: v.9. 205 


lity;” others, ‘‘obstinacy;” others, ‘self-confi- 
dence.” But the choice lies between the first two. 
Meyer, Ellicott and Thayer’s Lexicon take the 
word in an active sense. 

9. A little leaven leaveneth the whole 
lump.—To the assurance that the persuasion to 
still cling to the law is evil and perilous, Paul ap- 
plies the maxim concerning the spread of evil 
which likens it to leaven. Probably the basis of the: 
maxim was the Levitical defilement occasioned by 
leaven which necessitated its removal from the 
house before the Passover. The same figure occurs. 
in I Cor. v. 7; Mark viii. 15. Whether the doc- 
trines or the persons of the Judaizers are meant by 
leaven is probably a fruitless dispute, since, if it 
is their doctrines, it is these as made effectual by 
personal effort; and, if it is the persons, it is they 
as teaching certain doctrines. 

10. I have confidence to you-ward in 
the Lord, that ye will be none otherwise 
minded: but he that troubleth you shall 
bear his judgment, whosoever he be.— 
Here the Apostle adopts a more hopeful and confi- 
dent tone, which shows that he did not regard the 
Galatians as having actually reached the pitch of 
apostasy described, but rather as having entered the 
way which, if continued in, would inevitably lead 
to it. He has confidence in respect to them in the: 
Lord that they will not be otherwise minded; 2. e.,. 


“06 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


otherwise than his warnings and advice would re- 
quire. His vehemence is directed rather against 
the Judaizing false teachers and their principles, 
than against the Galatian church as such. He be- 
lieves that they will be recovered out of their peril. 
The troubler (whoever he is),—a quite general ex- — 
pression, as if Paul did not wish to personally spec- 
ify even if he knew who he was,—shall bear his 
judgment. Some person who had been chiefly in- 
fluential in producing the schism is evidently in the 
writer’s mind. 

11. But I, brethren, if I still preach 
circumcision, why am I still persecuted ? 
then hath the stumblingblock of the cross 
been done away.—The mention of these error- 
ists calls to mind their charge or assertion that he 
(Paul) at other times and places so far agreed with 
them as to preach circumcision. They might ap- 
peal to the circumcision of Timothy (Acts xvi. 3), 
or, possibly, to such principles as that of Paul: 
**To the Jews I became as a Jew” (I Cor. ix. 20), 
which apparently led to his taking the vow and 
shaving his head at Cenchree (Acts xviii. 18). 
“‘But how absurd!” exclaims Paul, ‘‘as if I would 
continue to suffer persecution for a principle which 
I do not think important enough to always and con- 
sistently maintain.” His persecution was just be- 
cause of his opposition to the law as a means of 
salvation. There would be no occasion for such 


The Right Use of Christian Freedom: v.13. 207 


persecution if this assertion were true. ‘‘Then 
were the offense of the cross done away;”’ that is, 
if it were true that I continue to preach circumci- 
sion, then the Jews ought to cease to persecute me 
for preaching the cross instead of the law, for then 
I should really be’on their side and the offensive 
doctrine of the cross need no longer provoke their 
persecutions. 

12. I would that they which unsettle 
you would even cut themselves off.—The 
thought of such false charges from his opponents 
now wrings from Paul this bitterly satirical wish. 
They think so much of circumcision that they 
falsify my teaching to support their view of it. 
They ought to have it to the point of mutilation.* 


II. Tor Ricut UssE oF CHRISTIAN FREEDOM, 13-15. 


13. For ye, brethren, were called for 
freedom; only use not your freedom for 
an occasion to the flesh, but through love 
be servants one to another.—In contrast with 
the bondage into which circumcision leads, stands 
the liberty to which the Christian is called. The 


* Such is the meaning of ᾽αποκόπτομαι (and not ‘‘excom- 
municate ᾽᾽) as most interpreters now agree. Septuagint 
usage in similar connections (cf. Deut. xxiii. 1) confirms 
this view. The verb is reflexive middle, and the καί desig- 
nates this action as something beyond circumcision: “even 
do this.”’ 


208 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


for gives the ground for Paul’s strong denuncia- 
tion of those who would lead the Galatian Christians 
into bondage. ‘‘ Well, may I rebuke them, for (γάρ) 
they would prevent the realization of the very idea 
of Christian calling, which is that of liberty.” 
For (ἐπ freedom, lit. ‘‘on the ground of free- 
dom, on the plane of freedom,”—so that freedom is 
the characteristic of your calling,—and thus the 
preposition comes to denote the moral end in view. 
Only use not, etc., introduces a caution against 
misunderstanding this doctrine of liberty: ‘‘ Do 
not understand that liberty involves license. Free- 
dom from the Mosaic law is not equivalent to free- 
dom from moral law or constraints. You are freed 
from its curse, but are under Christ’s law, the high- 
est of all moral requirements,” etc. 

The flesh (τῇ σαρκί), in an ethical sense, as op- 
posed to love and service. Compare the “ works of 
the flesh,” ver. 19 seg. They are under Christ’s law 
of love and service which forms the sharpest con- 
trast to the freedom of license. | 

14. For the whole law is fulfilled in 
one word, even in this; Thou shalt love 
thy neighbor as thyself.—This verse is ex- 
planatory of that serving of one another in love 
which was just commended. The whole law is 
the whole Mosaic law. They are still under its es- 
sential content of moral requirement because that is 
taken up into Christianity as the law of love; they 


Spiritual and Carnal Life Contrasted : vy. 15. 209 


are not under the Mosaic system as such, but are 
under the law of love, which was, indeed, an ele- 
ment of that system. Is fulfilled, ὁ. 6. ‘stands 
fulfilled ” (πεπλήρωται), denoting a present and perma- 
nent fact. Compliance with the law of love, which 
Christianity requires, is the fulfillment of the ideal 
content of the Mosaic system. Christianity has 
taken up this ideal content and fully developed and 
fulfilled it; each person, therefore, who obeys that 
law of love as taught by Christ fulfils the law per- 
sonally. Love is the all-comprehending principle 
which embraces the moral ends which the Mosaic 
law was designed to serve. 

15. But if ye bite and devour one 
another, take heed that ye be not con- 
sumed one of another:—But if, forsaking this 
law, ye bite and devour one another, in 
party strife, such as these heretical teachers engen- 
der, you will end by destroying each other as a 
Christian community. Love is the only true bond 
of fellowship. If you resort to selfish strife and 
censorious treatment of each other, your common 
Christian life will be rendered impossible. That 
spirit destroys Christian society. 


III. THe SprritvAL AND THE CARNAL LIFE 
CONTRASTED, 16-26. 


16. ButI say, Walk by the Spirit, and 


ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.— 
14 


210 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


We now have a fuller exposition of these two con- 
trasted courses of life: love and selfish strife. But 
I say, that is, this is what I mean: Walk by 
the Spirit, by the aid of the Holy Spirit who 
sheds abroad in the heart the love of God, and ye 
(certainly) shall not (note the double negative 
οὐ μή With the Aorist subjunctive) fulfil, etc. The 
two courses are contrary, and if you follow the true 
one, you will thereby be protected against the false. 

17. For the flesh lusteth against the 
Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; 
for these are contrary the one to the 
other; that ye may not do the things that 
ye would.—He further explains the mutually ex- 
clusive character of these two modes of life; they — 
are irreconcilable in principle,—the flesh and the 
Spirit,—or love, issuing in service (ver. 13), and sel- 
fishness issuing in strife and hatred (ver. 15), are 
contrary. There is a zeugma here. The verb 
lusteth (ἐπιθυμεῖ), could not in strict propriety be 
predicated of the Spirit. The meaning is, the car- 
nal desires are contrary to the Spirit, and the im- 
pulses from the Spirit are contrary to these desires. 
That Spirit here is the Holy Spirit, not man’s own 
spirit, is rendered almost certain by such analogous 
passages as Rom. viii. 9, 11, 14; Gal. ili. 2, 5; iv. 6. 
That ye may not, etc., (iva μή κ. τ. 2.) has here the 
full telic force. It is the purpose of this opposition — 
on the part of each principle, that men should not 


Spiritual and Carnal Life Contrasted: vy. 18. 211 


follow the other. The flesh is opposed to the Spirit 
in order to secure the result that men should not do 
what they wish, so far as they may be aiming and 
striving to follow the Spirit; and the Spirit opposes 
the flesh in order to secure the result that men do 
not what they wish,’so far as they wish to follow the 
flesh. In saying the things that ye would, 
- Paul is thinking of the will as for the time identi- 
fied with the principle against which the active 
opposition is at any time made by the opposing 
principle. Thus: The Spirit strives to hinder your 
following the flesh when you desire to do so; and 
the flesh tries to hinder your following the Spirit 
when you wish to do that. No onesided interpreta- 
tion of the phrase, (6. g. by defining it as the ““ car- 
nal will,” or the ‘‘ moral will,”) should be adopted. 

18. But if ye are led by the Spirit, ye 
are not under the law.—Here the opposition 
of principles seems almost to be between the Spirit 
and the law. It is soin this sense: If ye are led 
by the Spirit then you have freedom and newness 
of life, and are not under the condemnation of the 
law which your carnal lives brought upon you. 
The opposition is not strictly between the Spirit 
and the law as such, but between being led by the 
Spirit and the condition of condemnation under 
the law. It is a contrast of two human conditions: 
that in which men are led by the Spirit, and that of 
being under the law. The common interpretation: 


212 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


Being led by the Spirit you have the law in your 
hearts, etc., and hence are not under it, yields an 
idea correct and important in itself, but not the 
primary thought here intended. 

19. Now the works of the flesh are man- 
ifest, which are these, fornication, un- 
cleanness, lasciviousness.—The two modes of 
life are now pictured by their operations and effects. 
From the enumeration of the works of the 
flesh (ra ἔργα τῆς σαρκός), we see that the flesh (σάρξ) 
must be used in an ethical, and not in a physical, 
sense. The first three (fornication, unclean- 
ness, lasciviousness), are carnal sins. 

20. Idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, 
jealousies, wraths, factions, divisions, 
heresies.—The next two (idolatry, sorcery) 
are connected especially with false religions. 
The next four (enmities, strife, jealousies, 
wraths) are evil passions. The next three (fac- 
tions, divisions, heresies) denote certain 
social effects which spring from evil passions. 

21. Envyings, drunkenness, revellings, 
and such like: of the which I forewarn 
you, even as I did forewarn you, that 
they which practice such things shall not 
inherit the kingdom of God:—Envyings > 
seem to belong logically with the group beginning: 
Enmities, and then follows the mention of such 
outbreaking sins as drunkenness and revel- 


Spiritual and Carnal Life Contrasted: v. 22. 218 


lings. The phrase kingdom of God seems to 
be used eschatologically here, but it does not seem 
probable that (with Meyer) they which prac- 
tice such things (τοιαῦτα πράσσοντες)», should be un- 
derstood to refer to Christians who by doing these 
things had forfeited the kingdom. The inference 
is rather that such persons may not enter the king- 
dom, because they have nothing in common with its 
principles and truths. 

22. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, 
joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, good- 
ness, faithfulness.—Observe the use of the sin- 
gular fruit (xapréc),—rather than the plural—to de- 
note the idea of internal unity and moral homoge- 
neity (so Meyer); but no good reason for the change 
from the term works (ἔργα) to fruit can be given, 
except variety. No special logical arrangement 
seems intended among these nine virtues. 

23. Meekness, temperance: against 
such there is no law.—Against them there is 
no law; therefore there can be no condemnation to 
those who possess these qualities. To be led by the 
Spirit means to possess and cultivate these quali- 
ties, and those who are so led are not under law be- 
cause there is no law against the character which 
they possess. Such (τοιούτων) is, most probably, 
neuter, and not masculine (as is frequently held), 
and refers to the virtues enumerated above. 


24. And they that are of Christ Jesus 


214 | The Epistle to the Galatians. 


have crucified the flesh with the passions 
and the lusts thereof:—Have crucified, 
more exactly, crucified (ἐσταύρωσαν). The Aorist 
most naturally refers to the time when they became 
Christians; cf. ‘‘ We who died to sin,” Rom. vi. 2; 
“41 am crucified with Christ,” Gal. 11. 20; ‘* Buried 
with him through baptism,” Rom. vi. 4. The 
death, resurrection and glorification of Christ yield 
a terminology which is used in an ethical sense in 
application to the believer in his Christian life. 
The crucifixion of the flesh is the renouncing of the 
life of sin whose seat is in the flesh, so that as 
Christ was crucified objectively, so the Christian 
should, in a moral sense, crucify, that is, put to 
death, the flesh, so as to render its sinful im- 
pulses ineffective. The passions (παθήματα) are the 
affections which give rise to the feelings called 
lusts (ἐπιθυμία). 


25. If we live by the Spirit, by the 
Spirit let us also walk.—The inner {76 and 


outward conduct should correspond. By the 
Spirit (in both cases dative of instrument, as in 
verse 16): If our inner, spiritual life is sustained 
by the power of the Spirit, we should also walk by 
his aid and according to his guidance. 

. 26. Let us not be vainglorious, provok- 
ing one another; envying one another.— 
This is the concluding exhortation. ‘‘ Desirous of 
vain glory,” (xevédofo.),—a reference to the spirit of 


Spiritual and Carnal Life Contrasted: γ. 20. 215 


rivalry and jealousy which Pharisaic influences had 
awakened and developed among them, (c/. ver. 15); 
provoking or “challenging one another ” (ἀλλήλους 
παρακαλούμενοι), referring to strifes of opinion in the 
hope of triumphing over the rival party; envying 
one another (ἀλλήλοις φθονοῦντες), that is, cherishing 
grudges against those whom, perhaps, they would 
not openly challenge to party strife. 


ANALYSIS AND PARAPHRASE OF CHAP- 
TER VI. 


1. The Nature and Obligation of the Christian 
Law of Love, 1-5.—Brethren, if sin overtake one 
of your number, you who are guided by the Spirit 
should correct the fault and restore the man ina 
temper of gentleness, remembering that you too 
may be similarly tempted and may need a similar 
forgiveness (1). The true law which you are to 
obey is that of Christ which requires you, through 
love, to share the cares and sorrows of others (2). 
For if, on the contrary, one cultivates the opposite 
spirit of pride and self-sufficiency, he exercises a 
perverted moral judgment and is self-deceived (3). 
Each man stands for himself and not by comparison 
with others. Let him, therefore, test his own ac- 
tions on their own merits, for each must bear his 
own burden of responsibility and accountability 
(4, 5). 

2. The Law of the Spiritual Harvest, 6-10.— 

Those who receive Christian instruction should per- 

mit their teachers to share in the good things 

which God has given them (6). Do not deceive 
216 


Analysis and Paraphrase of Chapter VI. 21% 


yourselves by thinking that you can shun this obli-_ 
gation of love; God does not submit to the mockery 
attempted by those who think they may escape the 
just consequences of their actions; he that lives and 
acts in accord with the natural, selfish impulses 
shall incur the consequence,—a corrupted moral 
life, while he who lives under the guidance of the 
Holy Spirit shall attain the goal of an incorruptible 
existence (7, 8). Let this law of the spiritual har- 
vest encourage us to right-doing, for our reward is 
secure; let us, accordingly, faithfully discharge our 
obligations to all men, remembering those special 
duties which we owe to Christian brethren (9, 10). 
3. The True Ground of Glorying, 11-18.—Ob- 
serve with what large (misshapen) letters I have 
written this Epistle with my own hand (betokening 
my great concern for you which overcame my hesi- 
tation from inexperience in writing; See Introduc- 
tion (II) and notes), (1). To sum up: Those who 
are constraining you to be circumcised are thereby 
but displaying their zeal for carnal ordinances; 
their aim is to escape those persecutions from the 
_ Jews which they would suffer if, like myself, they 
avowed their adherence solely to the doctrine of 
the cross (12). They are themselves not consistent 
in observing the law, but they are anxious to have 
you circumcised that they may make a great show 
of zeal for the Jewish religion by having won you 
Gentiles to its observance (13). But, as for me, I 


218 Analysis and Paraphrase of Chapter V1. 


‘disclaim all grounds of glorying except the cross of 
Christ by which (so R. V., see notes) I have broken 
off all relations to the sinful world as if by death 
(14). Since Christ’s death is the true saving power, 
I am indifferent to the question of circumcision (in 
itself) and make newness of life through Christ my 
great concern (15), This truth (the importance of 
renewed life) supplies the rule and test of action 
and belief. Peace and mercy be upon all such (who 
will thereby prove themselves the true Israelites) as 
adopt and obey it! (16). Let me not be troubled 
more by these errors and accusations, for the proof 
that I am Christ’s is found in the scars upon my 
body which I have received in his service. Grace 
be with you (17, 18). 


CHAPTER VI. 


I. THe NATURE AND OBLIGATION OF THE CHRIS- 
TIAN Law OF LOVE, 1-5. 


AFTER administering the severe rebukes to the 
Galatians which we have studied, the Apostle takes 
amore conciliatory tone. He reminds them that, 
though some have been led astray into faults and 
errors, they are not to reject but rather to restore 
them. The lack of any praise at the beginning of 
the letter is partially compensated by this kindly 
and gentle closing, beginning with a fraternal ad- 
dress. 

1. Brethren, even if a man be over- 
taken in any trespass, ye which are spirit- 
ual, restore such a one in a spirit of meek- 
ness; looking to thyself, lest thou also be 
tempted :—Even if (ἐὰν καί, more exactly: “if 
even,” or “‘although;” if a man be even overtaken 
by a fault, which pursues him faster than he can 
escape (so Meyer, Ellicott). The word even (καί) 
‘‘points to an aggravated offense” (Ellicott). 
_ Others interpret overtaken (προλημφθῃ) as meaning 
219 


220 “The Epistle to the Galatians. 


‘to be caught by it before one fairly sees it,” that 
is, ‘‘to be surprised by it,” (so Lightfoot), In 
either case, the preposition in (ἐν) conveys the idea 
of one’s being held in it, caught in its grasp or 
power. In any trespass or transgression 
(παράπτωμα); no doubt said with special reference to 
the lapse of the Galatians from Christian faith and 
life under the leading of the Jewish errorists, but 
yet left quite general so as to be a comprehensive 
statement of principle. Ye which are spirit- 
ual (οἱ πνευματικοῦ those who are led by the Holy 
Spirit (πνεῦμα ἅγιον) as opposed to the ‘natural ” 
(ψυχικοῖδ 1 Cor. 11. 14, or “carnal” (σαρκικοῖ) I Cor. iii. 
1-4. In Rom. xv. 1 we have a kindred contrast of 
the ‘‘ strong ” (δυνατοί) and ‘‘ weak” (ddévara:). Paul 
leaves each person to decide to which class he be- 
longs, in accordance with the definitions of the 
‘‘spiritual” and the ‘‘carnal” life which he has 
given, (the walking κατὰ πνεῦμα, OF κατὰ σάρκα). Re- 
store (καταρτίζετε), lit. “adjust,” “set right,” that 
is, bring back to their true normal Christian life. 
A spirit of meekness (πνεῦμα πραύτητος) is under- 
tood by Luther, Calvin, Lightfoot, De Wette, 
Wieseler e¢ al. to denote a certain tone or temper of 
the human spirit. Meyer regards it as a designa- 
tion of the Holy Spirit (as also in I Cor. iv. 21). 
But in this passage the phrase is correlative to ‘‘in 
love” (ἐν ἀγάπῃ), a fact which strongly favors the 
meaning: ‘‘in ἃ ¢emper of meekness.” The primary 


The Christian Law of Love: vi. 2. 221 


reference seems clearly to be to that temper whereby 
they prove themselves to be spiritual, and thus 
the reference is, indirectly, to the Holy Spirit, so 
far as this grace of meekness is a fruit of his in- 
dwelling, (so Ellicott) Looking to thyself 
(σκοπῶν σεαυτόν); he here changes to the singular num- 
ber and individualizes the thought: ‘‘taking heed 
each of you;” lest thou also be tempted, 
drawn by temptation into the sins of the unspirit- 
ual, and thus fall into the same need of sympathy and. 
help which it is now your duty to render in the case: 
of the fallen one just spoken of. 

2. Bear ye one another’s burdens, and 
so fulfil the law of Christ.—The bearing of 
burdens here refers primarily to such a possible fall 
as is alluded to in verse 1. Bear, that is, take on. 
thyself, sympathize with,—the condition precedent: 
of all successful efforts to free one from those ‘bur- 
dens. And so fulfil, etc.* The law of Christ is. 
the law of love, and it is the nature of love by sym- 
pathy to bear the burdens of its object. Perhaps in 


* Most recent texts here read the future indicative. 
(ἀναπληρώσετε) instead of the Aorist imperative (ἀναπληρώ-. 
cate) of the older editions. (So Meyer, Lightfoot, Ellicott, 
Tischendorf; per contra, Westcott and Hort, R. V.) The: 
meaning is more pointed and forcible if the future is read. 
‘‘Do this and then you will fulfil Christ’s law.’ The ful- 
fillment is accomplished in the bearing of burdens; that is: 
the fulfillment. 


222 The Epistle to the Galatvan 


the word law here there is a side reference to the 
Galatians’ legal tendencies. ‘‘If you will obey the 
law,” says the Apostle, ‘“‘this is the law, viz., 
love.” It is the law of Christ both as given, and as 
perfectly <dlustrated, by Christ, (cf. Matt. viii. 
17). The meaning of burdens (βάρη) can be legit- 


imately extended in idea so as to embrace “‘infirmi-_ 


ties”? (ἀσθενήματα, Rom. xv. 1), though the primary 
reference is to cases of lapse into error and conse- 
quent unfaithfulness to Christ. 

3. For if aman thinketh himself to be 
something, when he is nothing, he deceiv- 
eth himself.—A contrast with the two preceding 
verses is now introduced. If, instead of helping 
others in a spirit of meekness, and bearing their 
burdens, which involves humility and unselfishness, 
the opposite spirit is cherished, the Christian de- 
ceives himself by supposing that he is morally some- 
thing when he is nothing. If one thinks that he is 
so great that he cannot stoop to service, then he is, 
when morally judged, simply nothing, and his self- 
esteem is self-deception. The true greatness of the 
Christian is found, where Christ’s greatness was 
found, in service and usefulness. He that is above 
it in his own conceit, is wholly below it in fact, and 
hence deceiveth himself, (φρεναπατᾷ éavrév),—he 


practices a mental and moral deception upon him- 


self. ΄ 
4. But let each man prove his own 


om. Ὁ 


The Christian Law of Love: vi. 5. 223 


work, and then shall he have his glorying 
in regard of himself alone, and not of his 
neighbor.—But, as opposed to this vain course of 
self-esteem and self-deception, let each man 
prove, etc. (δοκεμάζετω, κι 7.2.) that is, put his work 
to the test, to see whether it is real and genuine, to 
discover what are the real motives and principles 
out of which it springs. His own work (τὸ ἔργον 
ἑαυτοῦ); WOYK is used in a collective sense, as in- 
cluding his whole life and conduct. And then he 
shall have a ground of boasting (καύχημα) with refer- 
ence to himself, and not with reference to his neigh- 
bor; 7. e., he shall have a real ground of rejoicing 
by reason of the value and genuineness of his own 
“ie and not ee sii reference ἰὰ some one 


tere! 


"(Oastalio). “The ‘‘ground of boasting” of the one 
who thinks he is something when he is nothing, is 
the false and vain glorying of one who fancies him- 
self superior to others. It has no real and valid 
basis, as it does in the case of the man who puts his 
work to the test of the gospel of love and burden- 
bearing (cf. II Cor. x. 12). 

5. For each man shall bear his own 
burden.—This saying sharpens and confirms the 
contrast between the true glorying in regard to 
one’s own work (εὶς ἑαυτόν), and not merely by con- 
trast with others (εἰς τὸν érepov). The argument is: 
You should test your work and have a basis of re- 


224 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


joicing in your own work, for every one must bear 
his own burden (or ‘‘ load,” φορτίον) of responsibility, 
and, if his work does not stand the test, his burden 
of blame. We cannot escape the obligations con- 
nected with our own work, and no one else can 
carry them for us. There is here only a verbal, not 
a real, disharmony with verse 2. There we have a 
’ command; here a statement of fact. There bur- 


7. dens of sin and sorrow are meant; here burdens of 


responsibility. There, the maxim is urged as a 
2 proof of being spiritual; here the law of individual 
responsibility is laid down as an explanation of the 
moral testing which comes to every life. 


THe LAW OF THE SPIRITUAL HARVEST, 6-10. 


6. But let him that is taught in the 
word communicate unto him that teach- 
eth in all good things:—Is taught (κατηχού- 
μενος); the verb literally means, “to _sound down ” 
(into the ears), applied, e. g. to the instruction “pro- 
ceeding from the teacher to the child; in the pas- 
sive, to be instructed (cf. Lukei. 4). From this_ 
verb we have our word ‘‘Catechumen.” Of the 
verse, ag a whole, there are two interpretations: (1) 
Let him that is taught, that is, the hearer, the 
church-member, communicate, have something in 
common with him that teaches, the Christian 
preacher, meaning, “Ἰοὺ the church support its 
ministers.” Here all good things refers to 


The Law of the Spiritual Harvest: vi. ἢ, 225 


worldly goods, and communicate refers to the 
impartation of these to the Christian teachers, (so | 
Lightfoot, Ellicott, De Wette, Olshausen, Wieseler)./ 
(2) ‘Let the disciple have fellowship with the 
teacher in everything morally good” (Meyer). The 
terms used by the Apostle are quite general, and can 
hardly be said to refer explicitly to the support of _ 
the ministry; but the habit of Paul in freely men- 
tioning the duty of giving, makes it probable that 
he had this in mind here. In either case, the verse ' 
urges the duty of fellowship as contrasted with that — 
selfish isolation of those who saci “* think diye ' 
selves to be something.” 

7. Be not deceived; God is ee μὴν ἀπ ένμο 
for whatsoever ἃ man soweth, that shall 
he also reap.—The thought is: Do not think ἡ 
that you can evade these duties and obligations. 
Do not deceive yourselves. God is not mocked, 
does not suffer himself to be mocked, as if one 
could. omit his obligation, and, escaping notice, 
taunt the divine Being with having overlooked his, 
omission. That can never be. None can escape | 
God’s order or his law. The relation between 
_action ἢ and judgment _is inevitable, and this is proof ἱ 
that God does not permit himself to be mocked. 

8. For he that soweth unto his own 
flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; 
but he that soweth unto the Spirit shall 


of the Spirit reap eternal life.—These words 
15 


226 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


are designed to illustrate the principle that we reap 
what we sow. In verse 7 two opposite kinds of seed 
are thought of; here opposite kinds of recipient soil, 
ὦ. 6. the flesh (σάρξ) and the spirit (πνεῦμα). The 
meaning is: ‘‘He who acts with reference to the 
flesh, whose life is determined by the natural im- 
pulses and desires, rather than by the divine law of 
love, shall reap ‘corruption,’—the opposite of eter- 
nal life ; not physical corruption, which comes to all, 
but moral corruption or destruction, the death of 
the soul as opposed to its true life. He that sows 
unto the Spirit, whose life is determined and guided 
by the Spirit, shall attain eternal life.” 

9. And let us not be weary in well-do- 
ing: for in due season we shall reap, if 
we faint not.—‘‘As opposed to the carnal life 
whose end is loss of soul, let us not lose heart in 
well-doing.” The figure of labor in sowing is still 
carried out. Let us keep on sowing ‘‘unto the 
Spirit,” for we have the encouragement that we 
shall reap, at the time destined for reaping. Luther 
has this apt comment on the words: ‘‘It is an easy 
matter for a man to do good once or twice; but to 
continue and not to be discouraged through the in- 
gratitude and perverseness of those to whom he hath 

| done good, that is very hard. Therefore he doth 
not only exhort us to do good, but also not to be 
weary in doing good. As if he said: Wait and look 
for the perfected harvest that is to come and then 


The True Ground of Glorying: vi. 11. 990 


shall no ingratitude or perverse dealing of men be 
able to pluck you away from well-doing; for in the 
harvest time ye shall receive most plentiful increase 
and proof of your seed. ‘Thus with the most sweet 
words he exhorteth the faithful to the doing of good 
works.” , 

10. So then, as we have opportunity, let 
us work that which is good toward all 
men, and especially toward them that 
are of the household of the faith:—So 
then, as a conclusion from the certainty of our 
reaping if we faint not, when we have a favoring 
time, opportunity (καιρόν), let us work, etc. 
That which is good (τὸ ἀγαθόν) is “the true, 
moral, Christian good.” Them that are of the 
household (οἱ οἰκεῖοι) are the members of the Chris- 
tian family, whose bond of union is faith. Our duty 
is to minister to the true good of all, but there are spe- 
cial obligations between those who have the common 
bond of faith, as there are special obligations between 
members of the same family, to serve each other. 


THE TRUE GROUND OF GLORYING, 11-18. 


11. See with how large letters I have 
written unto you with mine own hand.— 
The A. V. is certainly wrong in rendering: “ Ye 
see how large a letter I have written,” as if the ref- 
erence were to the length of the Epistle. The stu- 
dent of the original text will note that the Apostle 


228 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


does not use the word for an “‘epistle” (ἐπιστολή), but 
that which refers to letters of the alphabet (γράμματα), 
and that it is dative plural, denoting means. Paul 
was accustomed to write the closing verses of his 
Epistles (cf. II Thess. iii. 17; I Cor. xvi. 21), con- 
taining his own and, perhaps, other salutations, 
while the body of the letter was written by an aman- 
uensis (Rom. xvi. 22). 

There are two views of the phrase (rendered in R. 
V.): I have written (ἐγραψα): (1) Epistolary 
aorist. ‘‘I wrote,”—thought of from the point of 
time when it should be read (cf. Philemon 19) 
(so Meyer, Lightfoot). (2) It refers to the writing 
of the whole epistle which Paul had written with his 
own hand (if so, it is the only known case of the kind, 
except, perhaps, the private letter to Philemon, ¢f. 
verse 19). It is certain that the epistolary aorist 
usually refers, in Paul’s writings, to what has gone 
before, either in some other letter (I Cor. v. 9), or 
to a foregoing part of the letter in writing (I Cor. 
ix. 15), and, in the view of many, it is so in all 
cases (so Ewald, Ellicott, Wieseler). This view 
appears to me preferable. Many take how large 
(πηλίκοις) to mean large and bungling, because he was 
unaccustomed to writing Greek. Meyer interprets: 
““ Written large for emphasis.” * All things con- 


* In Meyer’s view the reason for the emphasis is, that in 
these concluding verses, he sums up the most important 
points of the Epistle, and wishes to call special attention to 
them by the large hand in which they are written. 


The True Ground of Glorying: vi. 12. 929 


sidered, the verse seems to imply that Paul wrote 
the whole letter with characters unusually large, 
probably from inexpertness or lack of practice in 
the writing of Greek; possibly because ‘‘ more ac- 
customed to the use of a tool than a pen” (Weiss). 

12. As many as desire to make a fair 
show in the fiesh, they compel you to be 
circumcised; only that they may not be 
persecuted for the cross of Christ.—He now 
commences a summing up of the main points in 
controversy, considering first the spirit and effect οὗ 
the Judaizers’ teaching. The first charge against 
them is, that they wish to make a display of their 
religion in outward ordinances. In the flesh, 
that is, in the sphere to which circumcision belongs; 
in outward observances as opposed to spiritual life 
and service. They wish to show fair, to be 
punctilious and zealous in this sphere, so as to put 
on an appearance of much religious earnestness. 
But this apparent religious zeal is really selfish and 
hypocritical. They urge you to be circumcised 
only that they may not incur the dislike of the 
Jews, and so be compelled to suffer persecution. 
If they espoused the doctrine of the cross as teach- 
ing the one true way of salvation, the Jews would 
persecute them. This they avoid by a pretence of 
great devotion to the Jewish law, as when they in- 
sist upon the necessity of circumcision. According 
to Meyer, in the flesh here means “the cinful 


290 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


nature of man,” and describes rather the inward 
life-element in which they are striving to make a 
fair show, than the outward sphere in which they 
choose to make the effort. The term the flesh 
usually has this ethical sense in Paul’s writings, and 
always when used in direct contrast with ‘the 
_ Spirit,” but I am inclined, from the reference in the 
context to circumcision, and from the phrase, ‘in 
your flesh ” (verse 13), where the reference is to cir- 
cumcision, to give the word here the meaning of 
the outward sphere as opposed to the spiritual 
realm. (So Thayer’s Lexicon; cf. Phil. iii. 3, 4). 
The second charge against the Judaizers is, then, 
that their religious zeal for circumcision has in it 
the prudential motive of escaping persecution on 
account of the doctrine of the cross for which they 
would be persecuted if they preached it. 

13. For not even they who receive cir- 
cumcision do themselves keep the law; 
but they desire to have you circumcised, 
that they may glory in your flesh.—A third 
point in the arraignment is now brought forward: 
They do not themselves keep the law. Their zeal 
expends itself chiefly upon an outward rite. How 
shallow, after all, is their zeal for the law. Itisa 
zeal which seizes upon an external ritualistic feature 


of the law and is indifferent to its great moral | 


truths and requirements. The “ circumcised ” 
(there is a suggestion of contempt in the term), 


= Ξ ΠΕΣ: pe τές = A= : Ξ Ν 
τ σε ee ee ee 


The True Ground of Glorying: vi. 14. 291 


judged by the standard of real devotion to the law, 
would make a very sorry showing. Keeping the 
law in a true and deep sense is quite out of the 
scope of their purpose. 

The fourth element in the indictment is, that 
their real wish is to glory in your flesh. They wish 
to persuade the Christians that it is necessary for 
them to be circumcised, and to have them become so, 
in order that they may, by this apparent zeal for 
the Jewish religion, gain favor with the Jews and 
thus secure themselves against opposition from the 
Jews. Paul by again using the word “flesh ” reminds 
his readers that all that the Judaizers are doing is 
done in the sphere of the outward, which by itself 
can have no spiritual value. Their glorying rests 
upon that which, in itself, is morally insignificant, 
and in the spirit in which it is done, is morally rep- 
rehensible. 

14. But far be it from me to glory, save 
in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
through which the world hath been cru- 
cified unto me, and I unto the world.— 
The opposing position of the Apostle is now defined. 
He will glory in precisely what they wish to shun, 
the doctrine of the cross,—that which is the stum- 
bling-block to the Jews; in salvation by Christ 
through his sacrifice; salvation by God’s grace to 
be received by faith, as opposed to all ideas of salva- 
tion by outward deeds or meritorious services 


232 _ The Epistle to the Galatians. 


wrought by man. For Paul the cross is the symbol 


of God’s love, pity and condescension, the sign and © 


proof of his grace and self-sacrifice. It represents a 
widely different realm of ideas from those involved 
in the Pharisaic conception of salvation. Through 
the cross the world is crucified unto him and he 
unto the world. The use of the cross as a symbol 


gives the motive for the figure of crucifixion as ap- 


plied to the sundering of relations between the soul 
and the world (κόσμος), this mere outward and tran- 
sient sphere of things. The cross is the symbol of 
spiritual and eternal things, God’s love, pity and 
sacrifice. When one apprehends these, they lift 
him above the world of form and unreality, and sun- 
der his relations to them as by a violent death, 7. e. 
‘‘cracify him” to the world. (Compare the rela- 
tion of the Christian to the law (νόμος): Rom. vii. 4). 
I refer the phrase through which (δὲ οὗ) to the 
cross (with R. V., Lightfoot; versus Ellicott, Meyer, 


et al.) because, in the connection, the cross 


(σταυρῷ) appears to be the emphatic word, and more- 
over, the cross is the instrument (διά) of crucifixion. 
The cross (not Christ as such,—xXpioré; = Messiah) is 
that at which the Jew stumbles and which occasions 
persecution for the Judaizer; but it is that in which 
Paul glories, just because it is the means whereby he 
is liberated from the world of external form, to which 
circumcision belongs, and brought into the sphere 
of the spiritual and eternal. 


The True Ground of Glorying: vi. 15. 288 


15. For neither is circumcision any- 
thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new 
creature.—By this assertion he illustrates and 
confirms the statement that by the cross the world 
is crucified unto him. He, in effect, says: ‘‘ From 
my present standing-point, I lay no stress at all 
upon such outward rites. The only important 
question is: whether a man is a new creature in heart 
and life. I care no longer for the outward, these 
extra-moral observances and relations which belong 
to the ‘‘ world;” I am wholly concerned for the in- 
ward and spiritual as related to salvation. The fact 
that I lay the main emphasis upon moral and 
_ spiritual character, proves that the world and I 
have parted company.” It should be remembered 
that the Apostle is here speaking of the attainment 
of salvation, and is not in any ascetic way express- 
ing contempt for all the relations and interests of 
the ordinary outward world. ! 

16. And as many as shall walk by this 
rule, peace be upon them, and mercy, and 
upon the Israel of God.—The rule or canon 
(κανών) spoken of, is the principle laid down in verse 
15. As many as adopt this principle, that newness 
of life is the all-important thing and not outward 
conformities regardless of the spirit which is cher- 
ished in their observance, peace be upon such and 
upon the Israel of God; an explanatory repe- 
tition, as if we said: ‘‘Such are the ¢rwe Israel.” 


294 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


17. From henceforth let no man trouble 
me: for I bear branded on my body the 
marks of Jesus:—From henceforth (τοῦ 
λοιποῦ), lit. «during the rest of the time” (genitive of 
time), that is, hereafter. ‘‘ Let these hostile annoy- 
ances forever cease. Give these false teachers 
henceforth no place. They are actimg a selfish 
part; but I appeal to my sufferings for the gospel. 
I bear the marks of the Lord Jesus, the scars and 
traces of ill-treatment which mark me as Christ’s 
servant and Apostle.” In II Cor. xi. 23 seg. he ap- 
peals to his sufferings in proof of his full equality 
with the Judeo-Christian teachers at Corinth. 
These marks of his devotion to his work and his 
doctrine he contrasts with the prudential efforts of 
the Judaizers to avoid persecution. I bear (βαστάζω) 
is said with reference to the dignity and honor 
which the “brands” (τὰ στίγματα) impart. Such are 
the credentials of his apostleship and his commen- 
dation to their confidence. 


18. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ ~ 


be with your spirit, brethren. Amen.— 
The addition of the word brethren to the bene- 
diction is noticeable in connection with the absence 
of commendation in the exordium and the severe 
tone of the letter. He thus closes with an appella- 
tion of affection. 


πο ρον ane 


APPENDIX. 


AN OUTLINE PLAN FOR THE STUDY OF 
THE EPISTLE. 


I, PRELIMINARY STUDIES. 


1. READ the entire Epistle with a view to divid- 
ing it into its ¢hree natural divisions, (a) apologetic, 
in which the Apostle defends himself and his teach- 
ing, (b) doctrinal, in which he explains and defends 
‘his gospel,” (0) practical or hortatory, in which he 
warns his readers against a possible abuse of his 
principles and adds exhortations regarding the Chris- 
tian life. 

2. Determine by this reading (or still better, by a 
second reading), (a) what were the personal objec- 
tions or accusations against the Apostle and his 
course of life, which had developed in the Galatian 
churches; (b) what were the grave doctrinal errors 
in which these accusations had their root. 

3. Ascertain from the Acts, (a) what can be known 
of Paul’s visits to Galatia and of his relation to the 
churches there; (b) seek in the Acts (ef. especially 
xv. 1 with Gal. ii. 12) any light that may be thrown 
upon the origin, opinions and spirit of the “ false 


236 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


brethren ” (Gal. ii. 4) who were stirring up strife in 
Galatia. 

4, In the light of the foregoing studies, define 
accurately (a) the occasion, (b) the object of the 
Epistle. 


II. CLosER ANALYSIS OF THE EPISTLE. 


Taking the apologetic section, note (a) the saluta- 
tion and by comparing it with those of other Pauline 
letters, ascertain its marked peculiarity and the sig- 
nificance of this for the whole letter. (b) How 
does the polemic element in Galatians differ from 
that in Romans? (c) Note the point of Ch. I and 
define the bearing upon it of each section of the 
chapter (as it is divided in the Rev. Ver.). (d) De- 
termine the point of Ch. II. and observe the way in 
which it is supported by ¢wo series of facts and 
arguments. 

2. In the doctrinal portion, study (a) the use made 
of the case of Abraham and define carefully the 
principle which is thereby established. (b) Note the 
relation which the Apostle defines between the gra- 
cious covenant of promise and the legal system. (c) 
Observe the description of the preparatory office of 
the law in leading men to Christ ; (4) the way in 
which Paul illustrates the difference between freedom 
under the gospel and bondage under the law. (6) Note 
his polemic against circumcision and account for it 
in the circumstances which called forth the Epistle. 


LON 

— Ἔν 

ς με ied 
aa : 

= ae ea 
SEF | 

x = fim pt 


Appendiz. 207 


3. In the practical portion collate (a) the warn- 
ings against dangers to which the readers were espe- 
pecially exposed, and (b) the maxims or principles 
for the Christian life. 


Ill. ExEcesis. 


1, When the Epistle has been thus analyzed and 
distributed into sections or topical divisions, a more 
critical study should be made of each part. (a) 
The writing of a paraphrase of a given section is a 
useful exercise. (Ὁ) Each obscure expression should 
receive careful attention. (0) The rapid rush of 
Paul’s passionate thought in the Epistle has occa- 
sioned many grammatical ellipses; the omitted or 
implied thought should be supplied by a study of 
the context. (d) In the doctrinal portion, study 
closely the characteristic gospel principles as opposed 
to the legal principles, determining thus the essen-. 
tial content of Paul’s gospel. (e) Define carefully 
the relation between the proto-gospel (‘‘ covenant ” 
or ‘‘ promise ἢ) given to Abraham and the legal sys-. 
tem; how is this original gospel related to Chris- 
tianity, and what does this relation prove respecting 
the relation of the daw to the gospel of Christ ? 

2. Study with special care the terms which repre- 
sent the key-thoughts of the Epistle, such as ‘‘gospel ” 
(its origin and content), ‘‘ revelation” (i. 12, 16, 
when experienced Ὁ), ‘‘ the gospel of the circumcision” 
(ii. 7, how different from Paul’s “ gospel? ”’) < pil- 


238 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


lars” (ii. 9, why so called ?), ‘‘dissimulation” (i. 13, 
Gk: ‘‘ hypocrisy; meaning and nature of ?), ‘no 
flesh justified by law” (ii. 16 e¢ al., why? cf. esp. 
Rom. viii. 3), ‘crucified with Christ” (11. 20, meaning 
and origin of this and kindred expressions; collate 
the passages from Gal. and other Eps. of Paul), 
*‘reckoned for righteousness” (what is reckoned, 
why, and how?), ‘‘ covenant,” ““ promise,” ““ media- 
tor,” ‘kept in ward,” “tutor unto Christ,” * heir 
and bond-servant,” ‘‘ rudiments of the world,” 
“* weak and beggarly rudiments,” ‘‘ fallen away from 
grace,” *‘ freedom,” ‘“‘walk by the Spirit,” ‘< the 
flesh” (works of), ‘‘ new creature.” 

3. Certain passages, of special difficulty or impor- 
tance, may be selected for more exhaustive study, 
such as 111. 16; 111, 20 and iv. 24-31 (the three most 
difficult passages in the Epistle). (a) Collate from 
the foregoing exposition and from other commen- 
taries the leading interpretations. (b) Carefully 
note the difficulties connected with each. (c) By 
study of the passage and comparison of views try to 
elaborate an opinion which shall be your own. 


IV. ΒΙΒΙΙ͂ΟΑΙ, THEOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE. 
[REMARK.—A few subjects are here given upon which it 
is thought that the studies outlined above wculd enable 
the student to form intelligent and comprehensive 
views. | 
1. The teacning of the Epistle respecting the 
purpose of the law. (a) The origin of the law. (Ὁ) 


Appendix. 239 


The mode of its promulgation. (c) The ¢ime of its 
publication as related to the gracious promise. (d) 
Its supplemmntary character in its relation to the 
“* proto-gospel.” (6) Reasons why it cannot justify. 
(f) Its relation to sin; in what sense does it increase 
sin? (5) How can this aim of the law be harmon- 
ized with the common view that it was given to 
check transgressions? Does Paul recognize this 
latter purpose? (h) How does the law by rousing 
the power of sin lead to Christ? (1) Is the law abro- 
gated by Christianity? Ifso, in what sense? (7) Is 
it a direct prescriptive authority for the church and 
the Christian to-day? 

2. Teaching respecting redemption from the 
- curse of the law by the cross of Christ. (a) What is 
the ‘‘curse of the law?” (Ὁ) What does the 
‘* cross ἢ mean or symbolize for Paul? (c) How was 
Christ “‘made a curse for us?” (d) On what 
grounds, then, will Paul ““ glory ” only in the cross? 


VY. SpecraL Topics. 


1. Critical comparison of Gal. I and II with the 
corresponding narratives in the Acts with a view to 
exhibiting their similarities and differences. 

2. Paul’s use of allegory in the Epistle and other 
alleged uses by him of ““ Rabbinic exegesis.” 

3. A comparison of the doctrinal method and con- 
tent of Galatians with those of Romans. 

4, A comparison of the Galatian heresies with 


240 The Epistle to the Galatians. 


those which existed in the church at Colossae with 
a view to showing in what different ways they 
threatened the integrity of the gospel. 

5. The Apostle Paul as the champion of a uni- 
versal gospel, including an examination of the 
nature and extent of his difference from the ‘“pil- 
lar ” Apostles. 

6. Paul’s Doctrine of the Christian life as devel- 
oped in Galatians. 

7. Are the law and the gospel, in Paul’s view, 
antagonistic and exclusive of each other; if not, 
may they become so and under what circumstances 
do they in fact become so? 7 

8. The use of the Old Testament in the Epistle. 


CORRIGENDA. 


» We BY 2 


Page 21, line 6, for atovev read αἰώνων. 

Page 21, line 7, for [OX read TON - 

Page 37, line 11, for παραδοσέων read παραδόσεων. 

Page 41. Before verse 18 insert the heading, Paui’s Move- 
MENTS AFTER HIS ConvERsIOoN, 18—24; ditto above pp. 48 and 45. 
_ Page 47, line 16, after “freedom” and “ Christians” insert 
comma. 

Page 47, line 19, for “5 and 6,” read “4 and 5.” 

Page 50, line 28, after “I may,” insert “magnify it.” 

Page 66, line 10, before “‘ The proof,” insert (a). 

Page 67, line 9, for “When they saw,” vead When they 
Saw : 

Page 97, line 4, for 5-6, read 5, 6. 

Page 98, line 9, for “expression” read “ expressions.” 

Page 98, lines 9 and 11, omit the colons. 

Page 100, line 24, after the word vadn insert ”. 

Page 109, line 2, read: words ἐν ὑμῖν, “among you” (é/. 
A. V. ete. 

Page 110, line 15, for “former,” read “ latter.” 

Page 110, lines 21 and 28, for ἐξ read ἐκ. 

Page 113, lines 27, 28, erase the comma after “such” and 

“ insert one after (σάρξ). 

Page 114, line 24, for “latter,” read “last.” 

Page 121, line 8, after are of insert the. 

Page 121, line 15, for DY’, read Ὁ). 

Page 128, line 9, for “twenty,” read “ thirty.” 

Page 137, line 9, for “ covenant,” read “ O. T. law.” 

Page 138, line 21, after (παράβασις) insert ”. 


Page 147, line 10, reconstruct thus: occurs in Mk. i. 155 


Col. i. 4; Eph. i. 13, 15. 


Page 152, line 2, after “ possession,” insert (7). 


Page 160, line 19, for vii, read viii. 

Page 164, line 13, after “us” insert comma. 
Page 169, line 14, after Azm insert ”’. 

Page 169, line 26, after Again insert : 
Page 174, line 16, after request insert ”. 
Page 185, line 1, for 23. read (23). 

Page 185, line 20, for 24. read (24). 

Page 187, line 12, for 25. read (25). 

Page 191, line 14, after privileges insert ”. 


Page 198, line 3 (note) erase periods after A B ete. 


Page 198, line 5 (note) for ῃ read 7. 
Page 198, line 7 (note) for 7 read τῇ ἐλ. 
Page 198, line 9 (note) for 7 read τῇ ἐλ. 
Page 198, line 13 (note) for 7 read 7. 
Page 199, line 18, for (form, read form ( 


Page 214, line 15, after the word death insert comma. 


“ . 
eg ΨΌΝΝΝ 


ταν κ(».». 


᾿ fh " 


τὰ. 2 «-- 


Seat 
ΕΝ 


Ae f= 


ah ae 

os ee 

eee *: 
ess =" vie : 

See eS a 


ΠΥ rast 


rey. 
Load 


Merete 
ἵ 4 


MES: 


PSG aa 


ΜΙΝ 


ἀφ g 


be Nab aae AN 
ih “al ALK Ϊ wits 
τῇ ἐν Φ; 


ἡ Υ 
ri Wnty Dd dS 


ἢ ee 


ΕἾ; ἐπῆαν ἠδ weit ie 
Ἥ I Ay \ a) yi 
ti Ln » ᾿ iN 


DATE DUE 


ΤῊΝ 


z zi 


V 
t 


<< 
‘ 


Se 


Gf 


Me ἡ + GAYLORD 
TN 


Ray 


i 

\ y ν- 
NM: qf 
Va 
simi ihe } 


meee 
ban 


σιν 


᾿ 


Secs 
UX 


ta 


De 


‘ 
it 


we 


We 


τ 
ies 


Uj 


i 


ees Lg iit ᾽ 
mS 


She 
tal go 


Ey t ee 
Nis - 
at a "ae. 4 


“ ν΄. Pal Ἰ : 
be ες τι ᾿ς 
ae τε 


i ᾿ς τ 
at HS f 


4 . oi 
5 Hn 


ῃ nny , 

. = yy) 
ba HAF SO Mage 
La or < Ε ἫΝ 


μ 
>* 
| Se 
: i= 3 


